User talk:Mdis

Patriot Bible University

It started in Dallas Tex not Alamosa. This directly from Dr. Skinner, also found on Patriot website, in the catalog, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdis (talk • contribs)

Okay, fine. Please provide sources that it was approved in 1988. Also we do not list the places that don't refer to it as a mill. We say what people have said about, not what they haven't. Arbusto 00:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The link to the Colo Commission on Higher Education provides the official list which displays the year it was listed. This is official and not hearsay source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdis (talk • contribs)

The link your provided, [1], does not lead to a list that you describe. Is this the link you are referring to? Also removing criticism that is cited is not acceptable and will result in a block. Arbusto 00:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I found the link. You are right, 1988. Do not remove criticism from the article. Arbusto 00:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I have attempted to leave all criticism's no matter how untruthful it is. I am simply adding the other side of the controversy as controversy infers two sides. I believe that would mean you have to follow the same rule? Thank you for working with me on this. I'm new to Wiki and don't quite have all these buttons figured out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdis (talk • contribs)

No problem, working on wikipedia is a process. However, I fail to understand why adding a ftc.gov list that they are not on is important? Perhaps adding in lists (good or bad) that they are on would be better. Arbusto 00:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also you can sign your user name by type ~ four times when communicating on talk pages. Arbusto 00:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The rationale for putting the ftc list is that an individual (Steve) is accusing Patriot of being a diploma mill. Diploma mill business is illegal activity and certainly immoral. Given that the FTC who is charged to enforce the law states what diploma mill definitions are, it would seem to be a fair link. If you prefer that I find someone who says PBU is not a diploma mill and why, I can find such. It is however, a lesser authority much the same as Levicoff. The Levicoff info is very dated and he is personally opposed to fundamental Christianity. This makes him a biased source. His facts on why Patriot is a diploma mill are not accurate either. (the 4 tilde's seemed to erase the comments)

Are we in agreement now about reinserting the ftc link stating that PBU is not listed by the government as a diploma mill yet?

Put it in for now, but we'll get some more opinions from other users of whether to include it. It would be a first to do that for an unaccredited school. Arbusto 01:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note the change that the 2004 was out of the skinner home... that was never true and there is no credible source on that. The fact that the school was in the church is proven and is a direct statement from Dr. Skinner.

We do need a source for that. When did it move from Skinner's home to a church? Arbusto 01:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also be sure to use your "edit summary" to explain your edits space (right above where you click "save page"), and note below that it says sign your name ~ x 4. Arbusto 01:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

asking dumb question - what is edits space and is it asking about the user talk edits or the info page edits? Mdis 01:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It just lets other people know what your change did to the page. So if you fix a spelling mistake write "spelling correct" in the space. For commeting on a user talk page you can put "reply" or "question." It just makes it easier to track the good edits because usually the bad users who vandalism pages don't use the summary. Arbusto 01:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to get the exact date of moving out of the home into the church. It was in the 80's as I recall.Mdis 01:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The common misconception is that the catalog address was their home address is because their home was the church manse where the pastor lived - seperate building on church property. Thus the same address as the church. Mdis 01:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Information like that supported by a link that is WP:RS should be included. However, without a RS it can't. Arbusto 01:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the Levicoff link on his page does not go to a page that lists Patriot as a diploma mill. It is a list of 75 signs to detect a diploma mill. His book is sourced on the info page; is there a way to verify that it is a legitimate book and that it in fact lists Patriot? Mdis 01:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

His book lists it as a diploma mill. The archive.orged website contains only parts of the book. Arbusto 00:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Upon following the link to Barbara Forrests site I see that upon careful reading that Steve's book only lists AATI as an accreditation mill and does not indicate that Patriot is listed as a diploma mill. This source then would not be appropriate as the ref for that criticism. Mdis 02:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved the criticism in the first paragraph to the Controversy and Criticism topic. It is criticism and it is not fact. It appropriately belongs in the criticism topic. Mdis 11:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That it has been called a diploma mill and his most famous grad it Kent Hovind says something about the quality of instruction that must be included in begining remarks. Arbusto 00:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

responding to your comment - It would be a first to do that for an unaccredited school. Arbusto 01:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is unaccredited by regional accreditation. That in itself does not make it a diploma mill. One who would read the previous versions of this entry would believe that it is a diploma mill instead of fairly understanding that some people have criticised it as a diploma mill. This is a defamatory statement that gets repeated throughout the internet. I have been all over the place and everyone who states Patriot as a diploma mill always always points to this wiki article. I can only assume if you Arbustoo keep insisting that the article give the reader the understanding that it is a diploma mill instead of being criticised as a diploma mill that you desire to spread this about Patriot too. I hope that isn't true about you and that you are interested in the wiki values. Patriot should not have to defend its institutional merits on wiki against a professor who is ardently against creationism and the Bible and a man who graduated from Patriot. It is ok for the professor and wiki to disagree, but that is between them and not Patriot. Patriot does not attack Forrest on her beliefs, credentials and life work. Furthermore, given the age of Levicoff's book I believe we should see that the book actually lists Patriot or if it only lists AATI as the link to Forrests site. Mdis 12:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is unaccredited by all senses of the word. see the ED.GOV database. What sources do you have that is better than the USDE website? Arbusto 00:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbustoo, look at this link from the Fox news page

Encyclopedia: Patriot Bible University Source:Wikipedia Patriot Bible University, formerly known as Patriot University, is an independent, unaccredited Christian-based religious Bible correspondence school providing higher education courses located in Del Norte, Colorado. Critics charge it is a diploma mill, lacking sufficient academic ..

Note that one reading that link would immediately believe that Patriot is a diploma mill. The first topic of Wiki is to be a definition and/or a factual statement. There is plenty of room for the criticism's in the criticism topic. Agreed? Mdis 12:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We can only include what it cited about it. If you have any articles on noble prize winners that teach there it should be included as well. Arbusto 00:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbustoo, the resolution guidelines say that you should not keep reverting things back to the original (and incomplete) version. You and I are to improve it. There are no rules that say the criticism must be in the first paragraph and good article organization dictates that it should be grouped with the heading titled as such. Mdis 14:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am familiar with the guidelines. You will be blocked if you continue to remove cited information. Arbusto 00:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbutsoo, per wiki guidelines; Writing according to the "perfect article guidelines" and following the NPOV policy can help you write "defensively", and limit your own bias in your writing. You appear to not be limiting your bias on this. I am oppositely biased but am not insisting that untruthful statements are taken out, rather that just the opposite side of the controversy and bias also be presented. I am sourcing them as well. Mdis 14:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have never attended nor care about this school. You on other hand admit above you are connected to it. You need to limit you bias and avoid removing cited criticism. Arbusto 00:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A school's question academics must be mentioned in the introduction

1) A school's question academics must be mentioned in the introduction. Removing it is not acceptable. If you continue in this manner you WILL be blocked.

2) The FTC list, is pointless to include. However, I will hear from others on it. However, bolding certain sections is not acceptable. Arbusto 00:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enough.

You removed a source which explicitly identifies Patriot as a diploma mill, and added the claim that it is not, based on your interpretation of the criteria published by FTC, which is original research and banned by policy. You have no edits outside of this subject. If you continue to make tendentious edits to this article you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Guy 09:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The alleged source is likely no longer and print and pulled from the market as per Amazon.com. However, the criticism is not the issue here, it is the placement within the article. It does not belong in the first paragraph it belongs in the criticism page. It is obvious you desire to slander the name of Patriot rather than present a criticism and it's other side. I will move to the next level of mediation with Wiki. Mdis 15:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It does not have to be in print to be cited. Arbusto 06:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Four years later

Your recent edits to Patriot Bible University repeat the same kind of behavior that you were warned about 4 years ago (above). If you continue to remove valid sources, remove independently sourced content and replace it with "spin", and/or make spurious accusations against other contributors, you can expect to be blocked without further notice. --Orlady (talk) 13:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Each edit was sourced and cited and factual properly. All edits were made to improve the article organization. Why do you insist on your "critic spin"? The entire article is significantly biased with rumors and criticisms and little information about Patriot. To Wit: There are no other unaccredited bible colleges on Wikipedia that have a criticism in the first paragraph. Criticism rightfully belongs in the criticism paragraph. Mdis (talk) 13:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Patriot Bible is not like most bible colleges. Only a few unaccredited bible colleges have credible third-party sources claiming they are diploma mills.

Instead of continually removing sourced content and replacing it with quotations from ministers about the corrupting influence of accreditation, please discuss your ideas on the article talk page. To facilitate that, I have added the article to the "pending changes" experiment -- anyone can edit the article, but changes must be approved by Wikipedians with "Reviewer" status. --Orlady (talk) 13:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The criticism is by a few extremely biased to a non-biblical worldview critics who are trying to defame Dr. Hovind by labeling Patriot as a diploma mill. Patriot issues religious degrees only. It does not need to conform to DOE accreditation standards in order to be a legitimate school. Even Alan Contreras states publicly that non-accreditation does not make a school a diploma mill. (Notably, that quote was removed. Seems the critics cannot take balance or the other side.) Those who defame Hovind are making a big deal over a draft thesis. How silly. Further, even if Hovind was an "F" student, it doesn't make Patriot a diploma mill. Finally, putting a criticism in the opening paragraph establishes bias and not a neutral point of view. The opening paragraph does not allow for testimonies of satisfaction or support and therefore should not allow for criticism by a vocal minority. 71.214.44.65 (talk) 17:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC) Mdis (talk) 17:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Patriot itself?

Mdis, are you in any way connected to Patriot? You seem to be making claims that indicate you know specific details about its operation. That combined with your Colorado IP address made me wonder.

You keep removing WP:RS without giving any justification on the talk. No one has defamed Hovind (a convicted felon and current federal inmate). No one has defamed Patriot, a non-accredited school with an usual tuition scheme and doesn't list its staff's education, despite using doctor titles.

The issue is academics. WP:RS report that its academic standards are poor and that several sources have called Patriot a diploma mill. Lacking accreditation does not equate to a diploma mill, but poor quality work plus money exchanged for a PhD may. IF you really have a problem with the sources, contact them. Removing sources is not acceptable. May56candoit (talk) 03:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May56cando it et.al.; Each edit has a justification. Until it gets repetitive on the reverts. The justifications aren't read or heeded. Editors including you, simply have your opinion and force it by putting it back up. Please follow the two citations number 5 and 6 and you will see it does not support the statement that "Critics have called it a diploma mill". Number 5 goes to an article from the 1990's by Barbara Forrest in her review of Hovind's teaching and ministry actions. Forrest is not qualified to legitimately call a school a diploma mill—nor did she in the cited article. She simply referred to Levicoff's book calling AAATI an accreditation mill. If one follows the citation links to Name It Frame It, it doesn't mention Patriot either. It seems suspicious that something can be cited from an out of print book so that nobody can verify it. The citation number 6 goes to a page not found. I'll bet you didn't follow either link before deciding your opinion was the proper one? Reviewing one draft of a thesis (as does not equate to having information to make a decision whether a school is a diploma mill. The claim is an emotional response to the disagreement with Hovind's teachings and ministry.

Please note that Hovind was not awarded a science degree but a Christian education religious degree. These facts come from just straightforward reading of what is posted. Forrest has her pov (defending the teaching of evolution in public schools), Levicoff has his pov, and any other pov gets removed (such as other published comments by Alan Contreras or those who don't believe bible colleges should be accredited). Anyone unfamiliar with this article could read it and see that it's not neutral or encyclopedic. Most statements (especially before I got involved) contradicted what the links pointed to even on the Patriot website.

One can easily read the links point to Patriot's website and see that they are a correspondence distance learning school. They don't list faculty because they don't use faculty. The courses are self-directed distance learning studies. Whether you agree that this is competent methodology does not justify the substandard label. It seems that their testimonial page shows many people who like that method of learning.

This article is to be about Patriot Bible University not Hovind. Until recently there were more words about Hovind than about Patriot. Hovind has his own page.

After being in Colorado for 20 or more years, if Patriot were a diploma mill, the State of Colorado would not continue year after year to authorize it to issue religious degrees. In 1991 bible colleges were allowed to issue Ph.D's. The law was changed shortly after that and Patriot no longer offers them. Mdis (talk) 12:16, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ask again, since you forget to answer it: Do you have any tie to Patriot?

The citations are fine and using archived newspapers is fine. The source you say doesn't exist is from the York Dispatch and quotes Glenn Branch. The other, Barbara Forrest who possesses a real PhD, currently employed as a professor at a respected university certainly can call a double-wide a diploma mill, and be cited. Your personal opinion about Alan Contreras's beliefs are unacceptable and wrong. (You are violating WP:BIO.)

It doesn't matter what subject a degree is in. The focus is on the poor requirements and the poor work Hovind was alleged to have received a degree from. That what the sources claim.

Patriot's website is not a WP:RS. You cannot use it as such. What Colorado authorities do or not do, in your opinion is meaningless. Warren National University existed for a long time and was called a diploma mill before shutting. American World University has existed for 20 years and still operates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by May56candoit (talk • contribs) 16:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, I cannot use the State of Colorado nor the school's website to provide truthful encyclopedic information but it's ok to use a quote by someone who is against Biblical education and makes an unfounded statement labeling a school a diploma mill? What's wrong with this picture? Mdis (talk) 19:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are misrepresenting issues. If you find WP:RS then add them. Do not remove sources. Your claims that people are against "bible education" are laughable considering Levicoff's book praises qualified Bible schools. (Maybe you could offer RS of such your claim, but in four years you haven't.) You are free to use the State of Colorado link, which is why its cited/used THREE times.

I'll ask for a third time: ARE YOU CONNECTED WITH PATRIOT? May56candoit (talk) 21:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AN3

Another user has requested a review of your edits at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Mdis reported by User:May56candoit (Result: ). Please review the statement and make any appropriate comments there. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Your repeated edits to Patriot Bible University appear to be disruptive. If you continue to remove cited material against consensus as you did here:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Patriot_Bible_University&curid=1780292&diff=371364630&oldid=371314134, you will be blocked from editing.Farsight001 (talk) 12:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my response above under Patriot Itself? Mdis (talk) 12:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant. Your edits are disruptive irregardless. Continue removing cited material without first gaining consensus and you will be blocked from editing.Farsight001 (talk) 12:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see now. This is your sandbox and you decide what is relevant regardless of it's merits. You read the response and simply say you disagree and press on with your biased viewpoint. Mdis (talk) 13:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You make one more revert and you will be blocked for disruptive editing. If you want to make changes, discuss them on the article talk page before editing further. May56candoit (talk) 16:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am simply applying the rules and policies of wikipedia. If you have a problem with that, then as I already said - wikipedia isn't the place for you. God forbid you have to follow the rules like everyone else! Farsight001 (talk) 18:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at Patriot Bible University. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Orlady (talk) 19:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

July 2010

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by removing well-cited critical material from an article, as you did to Patriot Bible University, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Stop removing well-cited critical material or you'll be blocked. Claritas § 18:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. The next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by removing well-cited critical material from an article, as you did to Patriot Bible University, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Claritas § 18:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of a week for continued edit-warring and violations of the neutral point of view policy. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. ~ mazca ^talk 19:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a world of difference between adding well-sourced independent criticism and adding promotional material sourced only to sites affiliated or connected to the organisation. If you sincerely cannot see the difference then you might be better off not trying to contribute to Wikipedia, as the distinction is fundamental to our approach. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user has received many warnings, and doesn't seem interested in denying a connection with Patriot. May56candoit (talk) 21:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest: Patriot "graduate"

In your edit summary, you wrote: "Patriot is not a diploma mill. That is a fact. I earned a degree there."

If you read WP:COI: "If your close personal involvement with the subject would be seen as overriding the aims and core policies of Wikipedia, you will probably have a conflict of interest." It further states, "COI editing is strongly discouraged. COI editors causing disruption may be blocked."

If you received a "degree" from this place, then you probably shouldn't edit, especially considering you are removing WP:RS and have been warned about your edits many times.

Your personal opinions and experiences have no bearing on the article, only sources do. If you have evidence that Patriot is a great school and not a diploma mill you should contact the people who say it is a mill with that evidence. STOP REMOVING SOURCES from an article about a subject YOU ARE TIED TO. May56candoit (talk) 22:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]