Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:16, 2 November 2007

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Higher education Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Higher education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of higher education, universities, and colleges on Misplaced Pages. Please visit the project page to join the discussion, and see the project's article guideline for useful advice.Higher educationWikipedia:WikiProject Higher educationTemplate:WikiProject Higher educationHigher education Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

/Archive 1 /Archive 2 /Archive 3 Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

Archived Discussions

We wanted to ensure you knew there are three archives of discussion available for you to peruse at your leisure.

Please see the yellow file cabinet box to the right and above this section to read each of the archives.

Below are the table of contents for each of the archives.

Rkowalke 13:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

States Where Unaccredited Degrees are Illegal

In the past some people were interested in tracking down more detail as to what states made it illegal to use unaccredited degrees and what states had restrictions. I found this tidbit.

Is Oregon the only state that disallows use of unaccredited degrees?
No. It is also illegal in North Dakota, New Jersey, Texas, Nevada, Washington and Maine to use unaccredited degrees. It is illegal in Indiana to use an unaccredited doctorate and Michigan law limits the legal options of users. Illinois limits the use of unaccredited degrees to those licensed by other states. See those states’ laws http://www.osac.state.or.us/oda/unaccredited.aspx for details. Many other states are considering similar laws in order to prevent fraud.

TallMagic 06:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

More details on specific state laws are available here. TallMagic 20:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Diploma Mill Link

Avruch writes:
2007-10-09T22:39:59 Avruch; (Undid revision 163425344 by Rkowalke...isn't categorizing WNU, its additional refs for subjects covered.

I agree, didn't think of it that way.

Rkowalke 23:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Maintaining WP:NPOV

Maintaining a neutral matter of fact tone in compliance with the WP:NPOV and being an encyclopedia is very important. For example MarkTwain added the following.

The school has been the subject of considerable criticism on the part of former employees and others who believe that it has many of the characteristics of a Diploma Mill. In 2004, the school was one of the subjects of an investigation by a Senate Committee chaired by Senator Susan Collins of Maine.

A more neutral presentation might be something like.

WNU has undergone criticism in the past due to allegedly having characteristics frequently associated with diploma mills. (Note that I don't think that your sited reference actually supports the assertion.) In 2004 the school was part of an investigation by a Senate Committee.

TallMagic 03:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that I should also explain that I deleted the second sentence as well because it wasn't providing important enough information and that information is already covered in much greater detail later in the article. I hope that perhaps a compromise might be to mention unaccredited in the introductory paragraph? I do thank you for your continued efforts in improving the article, Marktwain. Please don't be discouraged. I suggest that you review WP:NPOV and WP:V. TallMagic 04:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

TallMagic, You may be interested to learn that Senator Collins has stated that the school is not a legitimate institution. I think it is quite clear, from the testimony of former employees and from the Senate investigation that, to put it mildly, the school does not meet normal standards of quality. We must call a spade a spade and accurately describe the nature of the school.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Marktwain403 (talk • contribs) 04:10, 10 October 2007

Hi Marktwain403, thank you for responding. I agree with your sentiment. I understand that WNU/KWU has been called a diploma mill many times in many reliable sources. However, we must maintain Misplaced Pages policy and guidelines. IMHO, the article does get across the fact that WNU does not meet normal standards of quality. HOWEVER, that needs to be a conclusion that the reader is allowed to come to on their own. Misplaced Pages articles cannot be judgemental. Please review WP:NPOV and WP:V. Also, please try to remember to sign your entries on talk pages by entering four tilde characters ~~~~. I thank you again for your concern and effort in trying to improve the WNU article. TallMagic 04:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Mark Twain403's comments; you mentioned in your remarks above, "...from the testimony of former employees..." Are you saying there was more than one employee who testified? I've only read of one employee who was employed for three months that provided testimony.

Also, when calling a spade a spade as you mention, it does mean one should hear from both sides before passing judgment. A hearing with one sided testimony is hardly creating a spade's worth of anything to call a spade. As you may recall, when KWU was involved in a legal case with Oregon, the state had to back down from calling KWU a diploma mill or even substandard. So what we have is the only legal case where KWU was at the table, and the end result is the state of Oregon, the most hyper state surrounding education based on my research (and that's not a bad thing either), had to cease and desist from calling KWU a diploma mill or substandard. And, the attorney general's office had to conduct training for Oregon on defamation. lol

Seeing people cling to the GAO case with its one sided commentary from weak testimonials (one three-month employee and one kind-of sort-of student of 12 weeks I think it was) is quite laughable. Your defense for spadedom is pretty weak. Last time I checked where it counted it was KWU-1 and Oregon-0. The rest of the commentary is just that - commentary. Woooo hooooo!

Rkowalke 21:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Studies indicate that most of the utility of unaccredited degrees is due to the person not being aware of the unaccredited nature of the degree. Having to specify that one's degree is not accredited will make the utility of that degree close to zero. Oregon-1 Diploma-mills-0 TallMagic 21:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... Although I understand your logic, I disagree with your presumption. What studies are these anyway? That WNU is targeted toward the mid-career professional and corporate education market is why I disagree about the utility. Oftentimes I think the problem is with semantics in one's comparison model that is not defined; not something I want to define here that's for sure. In any event, continuous commentary regarding this matter is a waste of time for many on this page - might as well be trying to defend that the holocaust happened to those who believe otherwise. I'll just go ahead and spend my time trying to get this article to some semblance of harmony...

Rkowalke 23:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

A fellow by the name of Rich Douglas, IIRC, did his dissertation on the acceptance of unaccredited degrees. It involved a survey of human resource professionals. I'm not sure what you mean by "comparison models" but if you think the general public can really differentiate totally bogus pure life experience scam diploma mills from WNU, you're sadly mistaken. If you're interested I can get you the reference details for the dissertation? TallMagic 17:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

TallMagic, I would ask what "Oregon-1, Diploma-mills-0" is in reference to? Unaccredited degrees and diploma mills are not the same thing. And if you can provide a reference to this Rich Douglas's study please do so.

I would add that becouse one person makes a study and concludes something does not make it true. Sometimes a researcher can be biased and will only include data to support their conclusion.

But to get back to what I was saying, I would like to see Douglas's work before I can comment on it any further. 69.211.19.161 04:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

It is not available on the Internet. Like most dissertations (except from unaccredited institutions), it is available from Proquest (UMI), Richard Douglas, Union Institute and University. TallMagic 04:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I see that Taylor, one of the recent editors of this article, is also a "graduate" of Warren National. He also has completed a course of study from another mail order outfit called Penn Foster or some such name. Taylor is quite proud of his accomplishments in the mail order degree line with an exceptionally long list of credits of various sorts. But apparently spelling is not his strong suit. Marktwain403 16:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi again Marktwain403, I thank you again for your interest and concern in improving Misplaced Pages. You're correct in your observation that there are a number of editors here that have diplomas from WNU/KWU. Regarding Taylor specifically, he's a good guy, IMHO, and does not practice WP:TE. I would also like to inform you that Misplaced Pages policy/guideline is that it's considered bad form to discuss your fellow editors rather than the article. Please review guidelines WP:AGF and WP:NPA. TallMagic 16:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Marktwain403, it seems to me that some editors have a stiff sense of what they think their educational qualities are. If your house is made of glass, watch your stone throwing. As far as being a new editor, my history tells it all and I can see you know that since you know my history, therefore, I can see you have already discovered my credentials, while you hide behind your anonymous shield and belittle others whom you think are new to your trolling. I would like to know how your credentials read since you think your editorial and spelling qualities are so great and you expertly tossed them out against others. I don't know what your agenda is, but flaming others will not get you the gold medal that you seek. I can see that you didn’t like someone messing with your sandbox.Taylor W. 17:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The very fact that Marktwain would put the word graduate in quotation marks seems to suggest a certain bias on his part. 69.211.19.161 04:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Marktwain403 has apparently been banned indefinitely from editting Misplaced Pages due to edit warring. TallMagic 04:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

States where unaccredited degrees have restrictions

Here is what I (Rkowalke 21:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)) have so far that I'm working on. Below is a draft - please keep in mind when reading... I think this would be very helpful to have in this WNU page and would be very helpful to the reader.

This list is meant as a helpful quick view guide only. It is expected the reader will apply their specific situation to their own applicable research. This Misplaced Pages page can NOT perform research or provide legal advice or interpretation of specific state law and statutes. If you require legal assistance, please contact a qualified attorney.

The table below identifies the nature of the restriction of WNU credentials by each state known to have any limitations upon unaccredited postsecondary institutions. Updates that add/modify/delete information from authoritative sources are always welcome due to changing federal and state laws.

Rkowalke 21:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Texas seems to be missing. TallMagic 22:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... it's in the code, but not showing up on the page. Interesting.

Rkowalke 23:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The above list is very informative from a working model perspective. From an article perspective, I suggest that it would be better to try to summarize it down to a much smaller size? TallMagic 22:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be better to leave it on the discussion page - only at the top and make reference to it within the paragraph on degree restrictions...

Rkowalke 23:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Except for the enrollment restriction, it is very general to all unaccredited institutions. Another option would be to include it in the List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning‎ or something? Linking from an article into talk pages isn't a good option. TallMagic 00:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• Can you put the lines/boxes back in the graphic? I think this would be good to include somewhere, assuming its fairly exhaustive, but I'm not sure this article is necessarily the best place. People looking into unaccredited institutions, or the use of unaccredited degrees, would want to see this graphic... But they wouldn't look here unless they were already looking specifically at WNU. Perhaps it should be included in articles about accreditation? Avruch 15:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• • Lines back in although I don't recall ever putting them in... oh well.

Adding this table to the List of Unaccredited Institutions of Higher Learning could be applicable. I think that page should be removed from Misplaced Pages although it has twice been recommended, but then retained. The reason is the Dept of Education already has a page of accredited institutions so that means the inverse is applicable; that is, it is redundant to make such a list because of the Department of Education's list. Better to refer them to the official Department of Education's website than the unofficial Misplaced Pages page inverse list. Hopefully someone will wise up and get rid of that article.

It would be nice to add the table to the Educational accreditation article in the unaccredited section once it is closer to finalization. Then we can reference it from the WNU page since it is important that people understand the nature of limitations imposed on the unaccredited degrees.

I see Texas showed up once I put in the lines... strange!

Rkowalke 01:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Introductory Lead Paragraph

Readers of Misplaced Pages should be given some notice of the controversial nature of Warren National University in the very beginning of this article without having to wade through the whole article. It is extremely important that the beginning of the article not lend credibility to an organization that does not enjoy credibility in the world of higher education. Anything less will be playing into the hands of those who benefit financially from the operations of the business. I call it a business rather than a school because I don't consider it a school or a university. It has been estimated that the business takes in millions of dollars a year. At that rate, they could afford to pay someone to watch this article and modify this article on a full time basis, which may indeed be happening. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marktwain403 (talk • contribs) 16:38, 11 October 2007

I agree with Marktwain's general thought. That is that it should be mentioned in the introductory paragraph that WNU is not the normal college. I will mention that it is unaccredited. TallMagic 16:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Note that I moved Marktwain's comment here at the end and put it into a new section. Also, Martwain, please try to remember to sign your comments. TallMagic 16:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Everyone please take a look at the new lead paragraph. In deference to Marktwain's point I've tried to make his statements better conform to WP:NPOV. TallMagic 21:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

One of the issues with this page has been the lack of material. That any reader has to "wade" through anything is a rather vacant explanation for the "need" of the controversy sentence. Even TallMagic has repeatedly commented in past discussions about the lack of information.

The statement is not necessary at the front, given the large section on controversy afforded in the article.

Rkowalke 00:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Please reference the lead section of the WP:UNI article.

Lead -- The article should start with a good lead section (header), giving the full complete official name of the college/university, detail about location (in suburb, downtown, where?), founder and founding name, and affiliation with any larger university system, if applicable. Give other names for which the university may be known (e.g. Cal, and bold them, too). Usually the first few sentences also explain what type of institution it is: public, private, coeducational, religiously-affiliated, a research institution, etc. The lead should be a concise summary of the entire article - not simply an introduction.

In particular please read the the last sentence that I bolded for your clarification. TallMagic 00:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

How very nice TallMagic. Don't forget WP:NPOV.

The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions.

So if you really really reallyyyyy must have that sentence in the first paragraph, then it needs to be WP:NPOV'd, which I have courteously done. Wasn't that nice of me?

Rkowalke 00:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The lead should be a concise summary of the entire article - not simply an introduction. It was a concise summary. It was also WP:NPOV. Perhaps there's a "conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources" that I missed someplace? Please point it out to me. Thanks TallMagic 00:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I think my breakout of WP:NPOV is pretty clear above. And of course your answer is in the WNU article itself.

If you could stop trolling that would be great.

Pestering - Another form of trolling can occur in the form of continual questions with obvious or easy-to-find answers. If a user seems to be asking stupid questions, try to give them the resources to help themselves.

Rkowalke 00:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the topic of this section TallMagic writes:

The school has been the subject of criticism and controversy from many in academia and due to a federal government investigation.

Issue 1 - The sentence as written by TallMagic violates WP:NPOV.

Why?

Because the sentence is misleading. And because the opposite could just as well be said "accurately":

The university has encountered great success in its 23 years of operation with mid-career professionals who for a variety of reasons are unable to sit in traditional classes or follow a semester construct that is hundreds of years old.

The lead in should be extremely neutral and the best way is not putting controversy up in front of peoples faces as TallMagic and "MarkTwain" desire based on their judgments of the institution. May I remind you TallMagic and "MarkTwain", there are about 300 million people in the United States. That means we need to be careful not to place our logic and opinions above anyone elses for whatever their motives. Again, present the facts and let the reader choose their own decision, which is Misplaced Pages policy.

Issue 2 - The federal government investigation was not because of KWU.

It is tiring dealing with the same old issue that opposers refuse to acknowledge. So let us review again folks...

The purpose of the federal investigation as taken directly from the GAO report and which was presented in front of the hearings was:

A. "...investigation to determine whether the federal government has paid for degrees from diploma mills and other unaccredited postsecondary schools. Section 4107 of title 5, U. S. Code, only permits the federal government to pay for the cost of academic degree training provided by a college or university that is accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting body.

This is not a problem of then KWU, this is a government problem with their check and balance process regarding tuition payments.

B. "You also asked us to determine whether federal employees who hold senior-level positions have degrees from diploma mills and other unaccredited schools.

Again, this is not a problem of then KWU, this is a government problem with their process of hiring/promotions/etc.

It is very unethical to make it appear the federal government investigation as mentioned in your sentence was for WNU, which may clearly and inaccurately be inferred from your current sentence. Better to let the information on the article afford the reader opportunity to decide as WP:NPOV desires.

Basically, you're doing what you allege WNU does and that is use the ignorance of the reader to make an assertion far beyond the scope of intent. If the reader understood the part of the investigation where a three-month employed worker who obviously knew all about KWU because they worked there for gosh, three-whole-months was the only employee who was allowed to testify then they would potentially make another determination.

Oh, and if they knew the "student" who testified was only a short time student who became a student specifically for the purpose of proving something, and who conducted herself unethically by lying on her resume to KWU, and who did not even apply herself to her studies, but was more concerned about proving how much she could get allegedly get away with at the institution, and who worked for the very committee that prompted the investigation of the GAO report (ummm that's called "conflict of interest"), then the reader would be afforded opportunity to make another determination regarding the information.

Oh and if the reader knew that then named KWU, which was around for 20 years at the time of the "investigation", and was quite successful, was not even afforded opportunity to provide evidence or comment to the contrary, then they would presumably laugh it off. After all, as anyone knows, people accuse other people all the time. Looking at "MarkTwain's" comments, and yours, and others, I get accused all the time trying to bring balance to this article by finding out information that you all allege is not out there, but that I'm finding. You see, it is not the accusation or the smear or the slander that is helpful to the reader, it is the balanced outcome; show both sides and let the reader make a determination. For all we know we could simply have had a problem employee or two at the institution, as all company's seem to have from time to time.

In any case, if a sentence must be put into the first paragraph so you and "MarkTwain" feel better, then it must be a balanced sentence. The below is considered a balanced sentence:

While the university has been very successful targeting mid-career professionals, it has also been the subject of much controversy.

The reason my sentence is balanced is because it provides both sides of applicability rather than the one-sided hack job desired by those fixated on judging the institutions themselves for the benefit of 300 million other American's.

Rkowalke 12:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

My view is that you jump to false conclusions so that you can try to smear whatever it is you are arguing with as being dishonest etc.. It did not state that the federal investigation was about WNU. If you look at the body of available reliable sources and look at the current article with a balanced eye the only reasonable conclusion is that the federal investigation is the center of a huge swirl of controversy and criticsm regarding WNU. The basis of the start of your "unfairness" arguments are already mentioned in the article. So I fail to see the relevance in your argument that the investigation was "unfair". Here's my proposal, "The university has been financially very successful targeting mid-career professionals. It has also been the subject of much controversy and criticism from many in academia and due to a federal government investigation." —Preceding unsigned comment added by TallMagic (talk • contribs) 15:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC) TallMagic 15:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Well we all have our views TallMagic. Mine of you is that you can't read. So let me say it again and see if you get it this time. I said

It is very unethical to make it appear the federal government investigation as mentioned in your sentence was for WNU, which may clearly and inaccurately be inferred from your current sentence. Better to let the information on the article afford the reader opportunity to decide as WP:NPOV desires.

Additionally, you seem to have a problem letting the reader decide things TallMagic. Are you worried they will actually walk away from the article realizing that WNU has got a great idea for its target market? Your edits consistently suggest that. In any event, my rewrite places both frames of reference logically in a single sentence.

I say this might be another answer:

While the university has been the subject of much controversy within academia and government, it remains very successful targeting mid-career professionals, and has currently applied for accreditation to assure its continued successful future.

Wooo hoooooo... Rkowalke 00:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, the "huge swirl of controversy and criticism regarding WNU," was created by the investigation. Yes, there was some "Puffing" by academia before, but after the investigation, every media reporter in the U.S. jumped on the "wagon" and spun the thing to death. That is why you can find so many "verifiable sources” to substantiate all the arguments.Taylor W. 01:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Rkowalke I did read what you said but simply disagree. You said, "It is very unethical to make it appear the federal government investigation as mentioned in your sentence was for WNU, which may clearly and inaccurately be inferred from your current sentence. Better to let the information on the article afford the reader opportunity to decide as WP:NPOV desires." No one is trying to make it appear that the WNU was the target of the investigation. The investigation is extremely important to the controversy and criticism. I think your use of words like unethical, "can't read", and witchhunt are indicative of your inability to have a balanced view. You and Taylor both admit that the government investigation is at the center of a swirl of controversy and criticism. It should be mentioned and if anyone makes the false assumption that the target of the investigation was WNU then further reading will clear that up in short order. "The lead should be a concise summary of the entire article - not simply an introduction." I think two sentences are more than fair and still is a concise summary. TallMagic 02:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with TallMagic about the two sentences as they presently stand. They seem fair enough. Now, for an aside concerning all the issues that have currently been debated here over the past month. Rkowalke and TallMagic, you have both been very instrumental in improving the WNU article, but as long as one wants WNU to be Dudley Diploma Mill and the other wants it to be Mr. Clean, you will never reach a consensus. I do not see the institution as a Dudley Diploma Mill, and neither do I see it as Mr. Clean. The school has been criticized for shady sales practices and low academic standards. Yes, I believe there was many instances where KWU did enlist shady sales practices and I believe the curriculum did need to be strengthened (in my case), but on the other hand, I do not see the school as being a "Mill" as some believe. Having studied at other learning institutions, I found that the curriculum did lack in the number of courses taken, but all the courses that I personally took at KWU were rigorous. I personally do not see my educational endeavors there as being substandard, but the critics argue they are because of their mindset. Now, TallMagic has never studied there and he is taking the written words of others who have never studied there (even the Senate Witness) and formed his opinion from these reports. And, Rkowalke, you have opted to form your opinion from the view of an alumnus who has walked the halls so to speak. This debate will go on and on and the only method available to halt the run-away-train is the air brakes called accreditation. That is my two cents and not worth much in the scheme of this debate. I thank you both for hearing me out.Taylor W. 18:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I sincerely thank you for eloquently stating your valued opinion. You are a good honorable person and I appreciate your contributions to Misplaced Pages. I appreciate and believe your statement that KWU classes you took were academically rigorous. I also believe the reports that some other programs were not as disciplined. Accreditation is really primarily a self discipline and self evaluation. It appears to me that in the past there may not have been sufficient school wide quality assurance regarding academic rigor. Perhaps new programs/classes were brought on-line too quickly before assuring the proper academic rigor? I really don't have visibility into the why. There has been much said though supporting both views so I tend to believe that there's significant truth in both views. The problem for the KWU alumni though is that a school's reputation tends to be more dependent on the publicly visible lowest common denominator rather than the highest. The Lt Cmdr apparently enrolled in a program that lacked sufficient academic rigor and the primary people that suffer has probably been the KWU alumni. My personal view is that the main reasons I believe that the article must be balanced rather than allowing some to censor most all negative information on WNU are: First, Misplaced Pages would suffer. Second, potential students and employers that use Misplaced Pages as a research source could be mislead. Third, violations of Misplaced Pages policy and guidelines should not be rewarded. TallMagic 21:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually Taylor W., taking a look at the University of Phoenix discussion pages provide convincing enough evidence that accreditation will not resolve this matter. The real issue is the dramatic change of distance learning education and the education model in general. In fact, the education model has to change and right now distance learning is becoming the catalyst for some change while virtualization will become the catalyst for full and complete change. Traditional education is fine for its niche, but alternatives are coming and of course the incumbent does not like that. I'm no Mr. Clean defender of WNU at all. The stage was set by TallMagic and Orlady when I arrived at this WNU wikipedia page and it was preposterous what was going on. To correct imbalances one has to move further in the opposite direction to create the pull necessary to balance especially in acute states such as the WNU page of pre-September 2007 days. It's like GPA, it is easier to keep your GPA up when you maintain it at the level you desire, but once you dork up one class, it takes many many classes to get it back to where it was. So I'm no Mr. Clean when it comes to WNU. My balance and comparison is having taken the same amount of graduate courses at the second highest rated public accredited university in the nation and comparing those synchronous courses with the same amount of courses at the asynchronous WNU. With that comparison, which represents years, as well as my years spent in accredited institutions of higher learning, both classroom and distance learning, I actually provide excellent balance on this page. Actually, no university is Mr. Clean... lol I would encourage you to add relevant information to this WNU wikipedia page. I'm amazed that you choose not to.

Rkowalke 15:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your comments about my having a balanced view TallMagic, I took the liberty to add some words you've used on this discussion page regarding me to rewrite your sentence back to you...

I think your use of words like, "you jump to false conclusions", "you're rude and frequently make false statements" and "try to smear" are indicative of your inability to have a balanced view.

One finger pointed at me and four fingers pointing back to you TallMagic.

Rkowalke 14:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's a proposed wording, "For many years the university has been financially very successful targeting mid-career professionals. It has also been the subject of controversy and criticism due to involvement in a federal government investigation."

Cleaning reference again after TallMagic's removal

Rkowalke, why do a bunch of your edit comments state "Cleaning reference again after TallMagic's removal"? TallMagic 23:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Rkowalke, you also state in another edit comment, "Reinserting pertinent link removed by TallMagic". Can you please be more careful and stop making what appear to me to be false assertions? TallMagic 00:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm terribly sorry TallMagic, I meant MarkTwain. You both have very similar traits...

Rkowalke 00:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

You're rude and frequently make false statements. TallMagic 00:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... that's not what the archives say TallMagic regarding your assertions and my continually having to correct you with fact.

Now, must I bring up WP:GOODFAITH to you? After all, you have been on Misplaced Pages much longer than I when including your initial account.

Even if good faith is in doubt, assume good faith where you can, be careful to remain civil yourself, and if necessary follow dispute resolution processes rather than edit warring or attacking other editors.

And of course let's not forget WP:NPA:

Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Misplaced Pages. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks will not help you make a point; they hurt the Misplaced Pages community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia.

Let's focus on the article and not on the person. After all, we are all human and gosh, we do make mistakes.

Rkowalke 00:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's look at those article archives that you mentioned above, in particular the article history archives starting "23:16, 11 October 2007" and ending "23:38, 11 October 2007". In those 22 minutes you made nine false statements in edit comments that were rude fabrications. Nine false statements in a week would seem frequent to me yet you made those nine in just a few minutes, coupled with history, that qualifies for frequent in my opinion. I suggest that you be both civil and truthful so that it is reasonably possible to focus on the article rather than the person. TallMagic 17:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow TallMagic, nine false statements? I feel like I'm on trial here. And I rudely fabricated them? Oh myyyyy this is terrible. What are those false statements? Hmmm... let me go check. Ohhhhh you mean my mistake of putting your name down instead of "MarkTwain's" when I was re-editing references due to "MarkTwain's" continuing vandalism campaign. This statement below:

Cleaning reference again after TallMagic's removal...

Well I hope you don't stay up too late about it. Gosh, it was a mistake TallMagic. And we all make them now don't we?

Rkowalke 00:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

One problem is that this is not the first time that you have made this mistake. A second problem is that this seems to be part of an ongoing campaign on your part to be rude and assume bad faith. A third problem that this appears to follow a pattern showing that you seem to have a penchant for making false statements. Another example of you making a false statement was your assertion that you answered my question regarding the apparent inconsistency in saying that the GAO Investigation section should be dropped because it didn't fit into the WP:UNI outline yet your suggested outline contained multiple sections that weren't in the WP:UNI outline. So yes we all make mistakes but it appears that there is more to this "mistake" of yours than just a simple mistake. Please try harder to assume good faith, to be civil, and to be truthful. TallMagic 16:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Another issue that I just discovered is what seems to be a misleadingly worded edit comment on this edit the edit comment is "Removing "MarkTwain" peacock verbiage and entire sentences until wording is agreed upon in discussion." Which lead me to believe that the revert was only to Marktwain's edits plus the lead paragraph summary sentences but in actuality, Rkowalke apparently reverted Orlady edits as well. TallMagic 18:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Another example of pestering is the GAO mess above. Here we go again. The troll page does mention not feeding the troll so I won't bother to respond any further to this section.

Rkowalke 21:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

So, eight or nine times now I have asked the question and you have never directly responded to the question except with insult as above or to falsely state that you did answer the question. TallMagic 02:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Article or Advertisement or ?

Rkowalke, on the following edit, you made the following edit comment, "Pulled out TallMagic, it references an article not an advert, but already have another reference so no biggie" what article is that that you referred to? What reliable source was the article part of? It looks more like some kind of advertisement, perhaps that KWU paid Google for since it states "Ads by Google" in multiple places, look here. Please explain what makes you think this is an article and not an advertisement, what lead you to believe that this was a WP:RS? Thanks, TallMagic 05:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The website together with the article appeared legit to me. However, I can see why you would think otherwise, which is why I removed. Enough said... Trolling: Pestering.

Rkowalke 00:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for responding to my question. Your trolling comment seems rude. Please try harder to be WP:civil. The reason for the question is that you seem to have a problem identifying Misplaced Pages reliable sources. I wanted to try to help you think about WP:RS more and perhaps read this important Misplaced Pages policy (again?). I also suggest that you read the WP:TROLL guideline more carfully and note that your comment above does not follow the suggested action in the very guideline that you cite. A much better guideline to follow though is WP:AGF. TallMagic 15:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the lecture TallMagic. The operative word in your huge writeup is "seems."

Please try harder to stop taking everything to the third degree and making accusations such as my trolling comment seems rude and then proceed to berate me for your misunderstanding.

You have pestered me in the past and this section is another example. Let me provide more of the paragraph as you seem to desire since you believe I've taken it out context or that it does not follow the suggested action:

Pestering

Another form of trolling can occur in the form of continual questions with obvious or easy-to-find answers. If a user seems to be asking stupid questions, try to give them the resources to help themselves. Or they could just be lazy or confused. Of all the kinds of trolling, this is the most important kind not to get bent out of shape about. Be friendly about providing knowledge to people. That said, in extreme cases, this can be a method of trolling, and it is not inappropriate to ask someone to leave you alone once you have made a reasonable attempt to answer their questions.

Once it was deleted and I said I could see why you would think what you did, there was no need to discuss further, hence you're pestering and the relevance of trolling, which isn't the first time mind you. If I left the reference in then your supposed help with WP:RS would be applicable and interesting.

Rkowalke 21:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

As another example of the apparent misunderstanding of WP:RS and why it is something that needed and still needs to be brought to Rkowalke's attention, please look at this supposed reliable source that was added by this edit . Here's the single sentence summary of WP:RS "This page in a nutshell: Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." It is not third-party. It is not published from a source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. It doesn't seem to have anything that a reliable source is supposed to have yet, it was used as a reference. Please review WP:RS and try to be more careful. TallMagic 02:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes WP:RS is important TallMagic and I agree with WP:RS. As for the rest of your commentary... yawnnnn.

Rkowalke 02:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Problem sentences requiring resolution on this discussion page before re-insertion into article

It seems the use of peacock and weasel words by the "MarkTwain" account need changing as identified in bold below.

For several years the university has been financially successful targeting those who are unable or would rather not attend traditional classroom courses, where the work is more rigorous. It has also been the subject of controversy and criticism due to a federal government investigation.

Peacock problem:

Peacock terms often reflect opinion, not fact, and usually do not help establish the importance of an article. They should be especially avoided in the lead section. Let the facts speak for themselves.

Weasel words:

Editors inevitably disagree. It is too easy to exploit Misplaced Pages and use it to spread hearsay, personal opinion and propaganda with Weasel words. Not coincidentally, there is a Misplaced Pages policy that deals with exactly that problem in more general terms: The verifiability policy, which provides specific criteria for what sort of support a statement must have for it to remain in an article if it is challenged. It is one of our core content policies, determining the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles - and it is this policy that weasel words undermine.

Need to come to consensus on this talk page prior to including these sentences into the article. Rkowalke 00:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I think more important than the peackock writing problem we've got is the tendentious editing problem we've got, mainly MarkTwain. Personally, I think we should rewind two weeks and reinstate that version of the article, and then add in whatever TallMagic and Rkowalke have agreed should be in the article since then. I haven't reviewed Orlady's recent contributions here, but they may be OK as well. Avruch 16:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe there is very little left of Marktwain's direct edits. The only exceptions that I can think of is the article summary sentences being added to the lead paragraph was prompted by Marktwain's edits (but no longer contain Marktwain's wording) and the large quote in the Faculty section, which Rkowalke already cut down to a more reasonable size. TallMagic 18:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Seemingly Irrelevant Straw man Argument

In the GAO Investigation section the following statement is made.

Mr. Lewis M. Phelps, a spokesman for Kennedy-Western University, said the online school was unfairly tarnished in the report. "The basic equation GAO seems to have come up with is 'no accreditation, no good,' " Phelps said. "We don't think that's valid."

To me this seems to be an irrelevant straw man argument. No one in the investigation made this statement. Making a ridiculous statement and trying to associate it to others and then knocking it down is the same weak straw man argument technique that I've heard countless times on this very talk page. Can we at least agree that such flawed arguments don't belong in the article? TallMagic 17:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Phelps did not say anyone made that statement. So why you're inferring that from his comment is beyond me.

He referred to the tarnishing of KWU in the report probably because of the inclusion of unaccredited and diploma mill together in the report essentially equating KWU to a diploma mill under the guilt by association argument.

Mr. Phelps comment is a valid comment relating to the GAO report to show what KWU thought of the matter.

His argument is hardly flawed. In fact, the proof of his argument is quite the opposite of flawed. Why? Because when KWU went to court against Oregon, the state didn't have much of squat to defend itself for its unjust defamation and tarnishing of KWU. So the state chose not to go to court so they wouldn't be a loser with a big "L." Losing would have been not only a waste of money but bad press for them, so they had to back down. For you to think Mr. Phelps is making a strawman argument is a lack of recognition on your part regarding the Oregon case and of the GAO report and hearings.

It's going to be a great day when ODA is shut down in the state of Oregon.

Rkowalke 23:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Rkowalke, the Oregon case has no relation to this issue, at least you haven't presented any connection. You've tried to make arguments in the past regarding the Oregon case and they made no more sense then than it made here. Oregon did not lose any case against KWU. There are many states today that don't allow the use of unaccredited degrees. So what makes you so certain that Oregon would have lost the case? It would seem to me that the Oregon DA just didn't want to hassle with a law suit when the out of court agreement basically accomplished the same thing. Identifying unaccredited degrees when used means that people are not going to assume that they are accredited and therefore be deceived. TallMagic 00:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the actual statement rather than your apparently irrevelant excursion into the Oregon lawsuit. Mr. Phelps tries to associate the silly statement with the GAO then says it is invalid. All that other stuff that you said doesn't change that simple fact and I don't even see how it even applies to that simple fact. TallMagic 00:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like irrelevant is one of your words for the week TallMagic. Calling Mr. Phelps statement silly means I can call your statements silly since they're just as silly to me as Mr. Phelps comments must be to you! The Oregon DA didn't want to hassle with a lawsuit because they didn't have a win... duhhhh! Otherwise, they would've gone ahead with the lawsuit and used KWU as a whipping boy to let others know they better think twice before coming after good old Oregon. Big "L" for Oregon.

As usual, you did not relate what I was saying to context but pulled out of context and off you go again... woooo hoooo. The point was, Mr. Phelps statement is not straw man because when KWU was allowed to represent itself it wins. Big "L" for the GAO hearings too since they knew what would happen if they allowed KWU to comment, which would have been the right thing to do.

So get all huffy TallMagic that I brought in the Oregon case, which was valid to explain why Mr. Phelps comments are valid and not straw man or irrelevant.

Rkowalke 00:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Rkowalke, I said that Mr. Phelps tried to associate a silly statement with the GAO. Please read more carefully. A straw man argument is when a silly, ridiculous, or easily refuted statement is associated with someone (even though they never said it) so that the statement can then be easily refuted. Perhaps you would like to reference the straw man article? Please explain the connection you see between Mr Phelps trying to associate a false statement with the GAO so that he can say the statement is invalid and the Oregon lawsuit. You talk about both Mr. Phelps' statement and the Oregon lawsuit but never made any logical connection between the two, at least not that I noticed? TallMagic 02:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the strawman breakout. The "connection", as previously mentioned:

The point was, Mr. Phelps statement is not straw man because when Kennedy Western University (KWU) was allowed to represent itself it wins. Big "L" for the GAO hearings too since they knew what would happen if they allowed KWU to comment, which would have been the right thing to do.

Soooooo his statement is hardly silly, ridiculous, or easily refuted.

Rkowalke 16:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

There are examples of diploma mills having so much money that they can squander it away for no other purpose except to intimidate people but regular people and state governments have limited time and resources. I believe that it makes perfect sense to most people that it is good to avoid court cases when possible. TallMagic 04:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I hardly think the state of Oregon was intimidated by KWU. Nice try though. Certainly GAO was not intimidated. In any event, the last thing the state of Oregon would have desired is to have KWU "assist" them with their legislation. Obviously, the state of Oregon was wrong and better to go out-of-court than to get whacked in the lawsuit and deal with the consequent bad press forthwith and henceforth.

Rkowalke 16:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I still don't understand any connection between Mr. Phelps statement that the GAO seems to think some silliness and the Oregon lawsuit? That has nothing to do with being allowed to represent oneself or not. Perhaps there's a misunderstanding as to what the actual quote is that I'm talking about. Here is what I'm talking about.

"The basic equation GAO seems to have come up with is 'no accreditation, no good,' " Phelps said. "We don't think that's valid."

Why do you keep saying that Oregon would clearly have lost because since that time many other states have passed laws making unaccredited degree use illegal? Did they do this not knowing about the Oregon lawsuit? I think not. TallMagic 22:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay Rkowalke, here's my attempt at reflecting back what it appears to me that you're saying. There are multiple states now that imply "no accreditation equates to no good". Texas seems to be a prime example. Oregon was never one of those states. If you look at the top of the ODA website they list a number of ODA approved unaccredited institutions. So, I guess the connection between the Oregon lawsuit and the GAO is that the same straw man argument can be applied to both. In your mind the Oregon lawsuit out-of-court-settlement somehow has proven that this straw man argument has won the day in the Oregon case therefore it should win the day in the GAO case. The flaws in this argument from my thinking is first that using the same flawed argument two places doesn't really relate the two situations, only the flawed arguments are related in having the same flaw, namely neither the GAO nor the ODA actually stated that "no accreditation equates to no good". Secondly, this flawed argument had nothing to do with resolving the out-of-court-settlement in the Oregon case. The better test would be if a case similar to KWU vs. Oregon was filed in Texas. In that situation it wouldn't be a straw man argument because Texas does seem to say that "no accreditation equates to no good". TallMagic 15:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

This is merely a quotation from a KWU official reacting to the GAO. IMO, the comment makes KWU look petty. Most institutions that feel wronged by the GAO are more diplomatic in their comments. I would think that WNU's partisans would want to keep that sort of thing out of the encyclopedia article, as it detracts from the institution's image, but that's just my opinion. --Orlady 16:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Staff at WNU

TallMagic responded to the following entry below:

Warren National has between 51-200 staff serving the needs of the student community.

with this comment:

This doesn't look like a reliable source to me? Please review WP:RS

Under WP:RS it states the following:

Self-published sources (online and paper) WP:SPS

Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.

Ms. Susan Ishii is an established expert because she works for WNU and represents them as the Director of Student Services and through legislative meetings as noted in reliable third party references as listed in the WNU article. The nature of the topic provides some idea of the amount of staff working at WNU. Seems logical to allow this one in TallMagic. Rkowalke 23:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

For that kind of information I would agree that self-published would seem reasonable. However, it does not appear that Ms. Susan Ishii is representing KWU/WNU in that profile. It seems that she instead is representing herself. That means that it is not self published. TallMagic 00:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed in the page she is representing herself, but on the section for her employment she is in fact representing WNU with her answers and detail.

In any event, this sentence is hardly something to get worked up about. It clearly is not misleading and it does provide some additional tidbit of information for those who have interest in the staff section.

Rkowalke 00:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The statement "Warren National has between 51-200 staff" is ridiculously vague and trivial. The part that says "serving the needs of the student community" is self-congratulatory/advertising fluff. Finally, no self-respecting encyclopedia would cite http://www.linkedin.com/in/susanishii as a source. 'Nuf said. --Orlady 00:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC) (I myself, have somewhere between 1 and 4 eyes in my head and somewhere between 2 and 10 fingers on each hand, all of them efficiently serving the needs of my brain; you can confirm this information by looking in the AT&T Yellow Pages.)

You sure sound like TallMagic Orlady. In fact, watching the sequence of edits over the past 50 days is fascinating. In any event, you really lack an understanding of WP:UNI by your slanderous and derogatory comments. Be sure to check it out because it has staff listed andddddd quantity is a part of the equation... duhhhh. So before you get all wild with your whacked out edits with your self proclaimed 1-4 eyes, be sure you take the time to figure out WP:UNI. It sure would help out those of us who are trying to get this article into a decent page and having to deal with your vandalism.

Rkowalke 01:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you making an accusation of sockpuppetry? If so, your comments belong at Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets, but I assure you that your suspicions are unfounded. As for WP:UNI, it's a WikiProject, not WP policy. If you are looking for official policy that needs to be considered in discussing this article, try Misplaced Pages:Verifiability; Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view (hint: I have one; you are apparently affiliated with this institution, so by definition you are not neutral); Misplaced Pages:Civility, Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks and Misplaced Pages is not a battleground, WP:IINFO, and Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox. --Orlady 03:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you "Orlady" and perhaps they are unfounded. We all have suspicions that are "unfounded."

You should read up more on WP:UNI as it sounds like you don't want to adhere to the projects intent, nor does it seem you want to agree with the listing of staff either although I am presuming you took the time to check WP:UNI. The Staff section is reasonable, but it does take time to find relevant material and there has to be a start sometime once relevant material is found. Got something for you. How about you help find some staff entries? I think that would be valuable instead of always attacking someone who is trying to find them...

Your comment about neutrality is interesting because your edits have been quite opposite of neutral prior to my arrival here. My choice is to bring this page into neutrality and that's what I'm doing. The page is much better today than when I first saw it because I've put the time in to bring it up towards a quality article level. I've watched the editing behavior here and it is fascinating the strategy to thwart balance and neutrality. Included in my observations are the articles written especially by CHEA and others when it comes to non-accreditation and Kennedy Western.

Regarding your WP throws, as usual, you and TallMagic toss out WP's like baseballs, but rarely identify explicity what the alleged problem is. In fact, I could throw as much as, and probably more WP's at you, but I prefer to focus on the article as much as possible.

Again, let's focus on the article and make it better - it's almosttttt there...

Rkowalke 15:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Please explain what WP:UNI has to do with the amazingly vague statement that WNU has 51-200 staff? If what it is supposed to mean is that you want an empty "Staff" section in the article then I think it is bad but I won't delete it because I don't enjoy edit wars. IMHO, Orlady's edits have all been constructive, properly sourced, with no plagiarism, something more than just quotes, and with no personal attacks. Please review WP:AGF, WP:NPA and WP:civil. TallMagic 02:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure TallMagic. WP:UNI has staff mentioned in the infobox meaning quantity. So identification of staff quantity is acceptable. I haven't put it into the infobox yet until I find more information, which I'm presuming I'll be able to. Since all I have is a range at the moment and it is from a valid source no less, then I'm putting that in the relevant Staff section for now. It's such a minor thing, and I can't believe all the fuss about it and the Staff section as well.

Now, because Warren National University (WNU) is an online only university, it is important for someone to note staff support. In fact, I need to work on that Staff section more - hmmm... WNU is different than a traditional university so there will be some differences in the WNU article that are necessary for an online/virtual/distance learning institution. By the way, it would be a big help if you could take some time to go find staff entries to help populate this section. The section would look better quicker.

Oh and regarding your WP throws again, believe me, talking to both you and Orlady means I get to spend quality time in the WP library. Wooo hooooo... It's making me a better Wikipedian for sure!

Rkowalke 15:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

For pity's sake, WP:UNI is a Wikiproject, not a policy. The outlines and infoboxes are intended to help people organize information. They do not constitute a mandate to create information from shreds excavated from sources of questionable reliability. The infobox also lists topics including Sports, Colors, Nickname, Mascot, Fight song, Nobel laureates, and Public transit access. Considering that you have contributed 4 paragraphs about WNU's nonexistent campus and insist on disseminating the useless information that there are somewhere between 50 and 200 staff members (that's presumably a box that someone checked on a multiple-choice form), I now fully expect you will provide a dissertation-length essay on the WNU Fight song, but length won't make the material worthy of inclusion. --Orlady 16:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

New strategy of attacking me Orlady? Whatever! How about you go help find information instead of belittling me for finding information. Now that would be great. In fact, you could help answer some of the voids in the current article by some research. Why not spend some time doing that instead of bothering someone who is taking the time. Nothing like dodging bullets trying to get to get this article up to speed from people who do not take the time to find information about the university and help build it into a great article!

Rkowalke 17:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The current version of the Staff section says, in its entirety: "Warren National employs staff in functions such as admissions and student services to name two." While that is almost undoubtedly true and may even be supported by cited sources, it is incredibly trivial information and the "to name two" wording/tone is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. I would like to delete the entire section as useless information.

Additionally, the next subsection ("Electronic Enrollment") says:

In 2005, according to WebEx Communications, Inc., as part of the university's continuing effort at improvement to meet the demands of the online learner, "Kennedy-Western leveraged WebEx Sales Center to move its enrollment process from static phone conversations to interactive demonstrations of the online university experience." The university can now, "...dynamically demonstrate degree tracks, student libraries, and its powerful e-learning solution with prospective students all over the country." According to WebEx, the application creates an informative experience that really helps students understand the breadth and depth of the university's programs.

IMO, that's an advertisement for WebEx and KWU (now WNU) that adds almost no value to the article. It also should be deleted. --Orlady 21:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the deletion of both of these. My hesitation is that I'm reluctant to make too many changes on an article when an active editor has been blocked because I don't want to appear like I'm trying to take advantage of the situation. I don't think that there's any such wiki-ettiquette or anything though. There are some other things that seem silly to me for example the straw man argument by Mr. Phelps should probably also be removed. To tell the truth, I'd rather let the article be crappy than engage in an edit war. Sorry, that sounds really bad but I don't really care about WNU one way or the other either. TallMagic 22:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

My purpose in bringing up the subject was to try to start a sensible discussion. After the edit warring that has already occurred on "Staff", I am in no hurry to delete it. The main purposes of my recent edits to this article have been to reduce some of the clutter created by overly verbose wording, unnecessary and redundant internal links, and obviously superfluous quotations. I find it much easier to read and edit when the article is not cluttered that way. --Orlady 23:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

WARNING unreliable sources cannot be allowed on Misplaced Pages. An assertion has been made that http://www.linkedin.com/in/susanishii is a reliable source, this is fallacious. I can live with properly sourced straw man arguments in the article. Or silly hyperlinks to things like ] but what cannot be allowed are bogus references. I consider this a direct attack on the integrity of Misplaced Pages. Please do not re-add that bogus reference to the article. Thank you, TallMagic 00:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

WNU Founder and President Comment Removal by "Orlady"

"Orlady" wrote:

2007-10-20T00:52:53 Orlady

(Undid revision 165748799 by Rkowalke - revert nonencyclopedic quotation (analogous to "thank you for the opportunity to visit your lovely home"))

The section removed by "Orlady" was:

</ref> Kennedy Western's president, Mr. Saltman stated, "We are pleased that the State recognizes the need for changes to its regulations. We look forward to working with the Oregon Attorney General to develop the new legislation.

The reason this is important is to relate the thoughts of key Kennedy Western University personnel to the outcome of the lawsuit as well as indicating that the lawsuit is technically not over until everything is enacted. If not, then the lawsuit may continue at the end of 2007. Hence, Mr. Saltman referring to working with the State to develop the new legislation...

Rkowalke 01:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

In following up on the final issue raised in the above comment, I find that sources referenced in the article indicate that the new legislation was passed shortly after the legal settlement agreement. In particular, note that http://insidehighered.com/news/2005/07/07/oregon (dated July 2005) says that the new law had passed in both houses of the legislature and was expected to become law soon. Thus, there should be no concern about the lawsuit continuing at the end of 2007. --Orlady 01:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

We are talking here about a quotation from a press release (not a particularly reliable source) in 2004 (not recently, as your diatribe implies). An argument could be made that it's not a credible source, but since it was jointly issued by KWU and the state (probably a condition of the legal settlement), it deserves extra credit. Regardless of the source, if you want to quote the KWU statement, you also should quote the State of Oregon statement:

"We believe that this agreement is fair and reasonable," stated Attorney General Myers. "It strikes a proper balance between protecting the rights of graduates and ensuring appropriate public disclosure."

"We are pleased that the State recognizes the need for changes to its regulations," stated KWU's Saltman. "We look forward to working with the Oregon Attorney General to develop the new legislation."

Neither statement is encyclopedic. Both are the types of inconsequential things people say when they are trying to display good manners in a tense situation (analogous to "thank you for the opportunity to visit your lovely home"). I stand by my assertion that the passage I deleted is a nonencyclopedic quotation that has no place in this article. --Orlady 03:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough for me regarding balanced inclusion; balance is the keyword here.

I'll handle the writeup of the Saltman side, which will be:

Kennedy Western's Chief Executive Officer and President, Mr. Saltman stated, "We are pleased that the State recognizes the need for changes to its regulations. We look forward to working with the Oregon Attorney General to develop the new legislation.

And if Oregon thought it was so fair and reasonable, why did they not do that in the first place instead of what they chose to do and had to incur a lawsuit to back down? lol

In any event, I disagree with your comments that this is an inconsequential edit because it shows Kennedy Western was assisting the state of Oregon with their legislation modifications, which is a valuable piece of information for people to know and understand as an outcome of this matter.

Also the statements are relative because they directly relate to the outcome of the "controversy", which really represents the state of Oregon being a little too gratuitous with their legislative strictness and the need for them to exercise appropriate moderation. Overall, this whole situation clearly shows trigger-happy problems with ODA and the need for removal of that entity, as well as an entire restructuring of the US accreditation whackdom.

The whole educational model needs change to match our world today. Education is a life long process not a four to eight year process. It needs revamping big time! And this accreditation situation is another example of why.

Rkowalke 14:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Please stop providing misleading edit summaries

I am personally offended (and I'm sure I'm not the only one) when a legitimate edit by me is reversed with an edit summary that says "Reverting vandalism" or otherwise falsely represents the nature of the change. We all make mistakes sometimes, but it is getting very difficult to assume good faith while interacting with contributors who very clearly have a strong self-interest in trying to make this article into a worshipful advertisement for WNU. These misleading edit summaries verge upon personal attacks. Please stop. --Orlady 16:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Please be sure to stay off my personal page Orlady. It is getting difficult interacting with contributors who very clearly are pushy and who threaten to sanction me and what not for making this article better than when I first arrived. I've put in plenty of time to get this article up to snuff and having to deal with this mess is outrageous especially when edit remarks only afford space for a certain amount of commentary. That I continued to edit the document after reviewing because I saw other stuff and saved the document without updating the edit page is hardly a sanctionable offense as you seem to want to engage against me as noted by your unwelcome commentary on my personal talk page. I'm trying to make this article better so how about you helping find information instead of attacking me when I find information. Your opinions about worshipful advertisement reflect your own problems with someone trying to find information for this page in support of WP:NPOV and WP:UNI. Please stop attacking me and get busy obtaining information for this WNU page to bring it up into a great article!

Rkowalke 17:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• • Your talk page is intended for use in communicating with you. It is not your personal space. Similarly, the WNU article does not belong to you. If you haven't figured it out, I don't actually care about WNU, so I actually have no particular interest in expanding the article. My only interest in this article stems from my interest in maintaining the integrity of Misplaced Pages. Candidly, I believe that the current quality of this particular article is such that the encyclopedia would be better off if the article were removed from article space. It's apparently a waste of my time to attempt to improve the article because you are determined to revert any changes anyone else makes, but it would be an even bigger waste of my time to attempt to expand the article -- it already includes an appalling number of meaningless factoids from dubious sources, so I doubt that much more could possibly be added. --Orlady 18:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeppers the talk page sure is about communicating with me. However, I have no communication with you that cannot be handled by this article page, nor do I desire any other contact by you.

As for your other commentary, why not recommend the article get removed like that unaccredited list of higher education institutions article, which you thought was beneficial to retain? You must have some interest in unaccredited institutions else you wouldn't be here nor would your edits indicate such. Your interest is hardly constrained only to maintaining the integrity of Misplaced Pages. It would appear it is also further refined to unaccredited institutions as well. Therefore, it would hardly be a waste of time to expand the article to better meet WP:UNI. We all have our interests though. Funny how few do anything about Marktwain's vandalism edits, but boy, let rkowalke make some edits that actually improve the article WP:NPOV and woahhhhh not so fast. I love the edit pattern because it says it all about what is going on. You see, it's not what people say, it's what they do that has the most meaning. If they say something and it is backed up by what they do then we have something, but when they say something and their behavior is otherwise, then the truth is extracted by their behavior. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rkowalke (talk • contribs) 18:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages user talk page is for communicationg with Misplaced Pages editors. It indicates a lack of understanding on your part if you think that communicating with you there is some kind of violation or personal affront. TallMagic 22:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted Marktwain's edits a number of times. While I don't always agree with his edits, he has never plagiarized, he's not a single purpose account, he's always been truthful on this talk page and in his edit summary comments, and he hasn't been overly uncivil despite your goading. I suggest that you consider turning over a new leaf, embrace WP:AGF, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:civil My personal view is that your current path leads to unhappy places for people that wish to be Misplaced Pages editors. TallMagic 22:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

As I said a few weeks back, it will go on and on and on. A consensus on most edits will never be reached. Too many personal opinions and interests involved here with this article.Piggy ziffle 22:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Oregon lawsuit section of article

I have several concerns about this section, starting with the first sentence. The first sentence says: "The State of Oregon passed a law making it illegal for graduates to list Kennedy-Western on résumés, specifically referring to the school as a diploma mill." I think this sentence is wrong. I can't find any evidence in the cited sources that Oregon's law was specifically directed at, or specifically named, KWU. As I understand it, the state had a law against claiming or representing oneself to have an academic degree if that degree was from an institution not accredited or approved by an entity acceptable to the state of Oregon. Accordingly, the first sentence is inaccurate and needs major revisions. Is there an accurate version of this in an earlier version of the article? Does someone have a copy of the former Oregon statute? --Orlady 23:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe the referral to the Oregon statute, as indicated, meant that the state had in effect banned all institutions that were not accredited or approved by the ODA. The ODA list of non-acceptable schools at that time did refer to KWU as a diploma mill. The lawsuit was because some graduates of KWU could not use their degrees and the suit was filed under a Constitutional Rights violation of those graduates. I do not know where to find the statute though.Taylor W. 23:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Orlady, the wording of that first sentence is misleading. The law most emphatically did NOT mention KWU specifically. The ODA website for a short period of time did have a column in the large matrix referring to suspected diploma mills as such. I can't specifically remember whether or not KWU was referred to as a diploma mill though. I suspect that it probably was. However, I don't know of any reliable source for that fact. So it should probably be removed. TallMagic 00:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

As a rather amusing side-bar, Alan Contreras (the head of the ODA) posted on a web blog (degreeinfo?) his disgust when a newspaper article came out saying that the ODA could no longer refer to KWU as substandard. He said that was ridiculous and was never part of the agreement. I've never tried to delete that sentence though because, "The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth." :-) Have fun, TallMagic 00:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

TallMagic, I don't suspect, I know the ODA indicated KWU as a diploma mill on the list. I read it when it was available online. If it was never a part of the agreement, then why did the ODA change the list? I don't think the sentence should be removed, just rewritten. Oregon did pass a law making it illegal to use degrees that were issued by institutions that were not accredited or approved by the ODA. I don't think they specifically passed the law against KWU though. Taylor W. 00:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

There's no question that ODA formerly identified KWU as a "diploma mill", and there's no question that the legal settlement agreement prevented the ODA from using that terminology. The question I asked is what the previous law said (I think we all agree that it did not specifically target KWU, but do we have a reliable source on its actual content?) and TallMagic says that Alan Contreras is complaining about whether or not the agreement allows ODA to call WNU "substandard." I personally assume that the PR people and the news media make many small errors, so I lean toward removing the word "substandard" when describing the settlement agreement. I note that the word "substandard" is in the report at http://www.globeinvestor.com/servlet/ArticleNews/story/BWIRE/20041221/20041221005728 (the press release) but does not appear in http://www.bizjournals.com/portland/stories/2004/12/20/daily26.html (a news article that closely tracks the press release in some respects), so I think we have a good basis for simply saying that ODA agreed not to call KWU a diploma mill. Phew! Accuracy is hard work... --Orlady 01:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I edited the statements about the settlement to remove the word "substandard," since (1) it appears in only one of two otherwise similar sources, (2) TallMagic recalls seeing an Alan Contreras statement to the effect that the word was not in the settlement, and (3) inclusion or noninclusion of that word does not change the overall message that Oregon had to agree not to defame the school. --Orlady 02:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it is more accurate, however, a verifiable source includes the word substandard and that means that anyone is fully within their rights to add it back in since, Alan Contreras' statements on a blog are not from a reliable source. TallMagic 02:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Although Alan Contreras' statements are not in themselves reliable, the fact that he publicly stated that the statement was wrong should lead us to question whether the press release was completely accurate. The fact that a second article in a slightly more reliable source (Portland Business Journal, which has more of reputation to uphold than an online archive of press releases) does not include the word suggests that the press release might not be 100% accurate. --Orlady 04:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Back to that first sentence. I think that a more correct statement at the beginning of the paragraph would be "The State of Oregon had a law that made it illegal for résumés used in connection with employment (including job applications) in the state to list degrees from institutions that are not accredited or recognized by the state as legitimate." References for that statement include http://chronicle.com/daily/2004/08/2004081001n.htm and http://chronicle.com/daily/2005/02/2005020203n.htm (additional refs might be appropriate, too).

The next sentence currently says: "According to the Indiana Daily Student, 'Oregon has one of the strictest résumé laws in the country.'" I propose deleting that sentence, because it doesn't add much to the paragraph or article (neither the paragraph or the article is about state laws) and because the Indiana University student newspaper is not exactly an authoritative source on the subject of comparative state employment laws. (If the sentence retains, note that the sentence should indicate that the statement was made in 2004.) Similarly, the third sentence in the article ("According to the The Chronicle of Higher Education, 'Oregon's approach to regulating unaccredited higher-education institutions is among the strictest in the nation, and is unusual in that the state both keeps a close eye on its own such programs and warns its residents about questionable ones elsewhere.'") seems like it might be a worthwhile addition to Oregon State Office of Degree Authorization (currently a minimal article), but in this article it's a sidebar that distracts from the flow of information. I can see merit in saying (either in the sentence about the law or the sentence about the lawsuit) that the Oregon law was unusually strict and far-reaching, but it should be possible to say that in a few words, without extensive quotations. TO BE CONTINUED.

--Orlady 04:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

It sounds good to me. When the Oregon law was originally passed it was the strictest in the nation. Since then about a half dozen states have passed laws that are more strict than Oregon's law. There are also multiple states that are considering similar laws. TallMagic 06:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Rkowalke returns to the discussion, 21 October 2007

Hello alllllll. I'm back after you're block TallMagic, which no one explicitly identified what I WP:3RR'd, which I did inquire about and neither you nor Alai, nor Nishkid64.

And not so fast with all the edits. I hope you and Orlady have been having fun, but not we need to discuss better what is going on here with all the removals you and Orlady have been conducting since my block started and your frenetic edits began. And in case you protest, I've put the blocks and highlighted in bold the removal frenzy below. I'll be back to deal with this situation soon enough.

TO BE CONTINUED...

1. (cur) (last) 04:41, 21 October 2007 Orlady

(→Oregon lawsuit - spelled out ODA at first use (and link))

1. (cur) (last) 02:22, 21 October 2007 Orlady

(→Oregon lawsuit - edited statement about settlement to eliminate the statement about the word "substandard" (see Talk page))

1. (cur) (last) 22:23, 20 October 2007 Orlady

(→Campus - removed paragraph that provided a long book quote whose only purpose is to say that distance learning insitutions don't have campuses)

1. (cur) (last) 22:15, 20 October 2007 Orlady

(yet more trimming of clutter (mostly redundant external link callouts)) (undo)

1. (cur) (last) 21:35, 20 October 2007 Orlady

(more elimination of clutter)

1. (cur) (last) 21:19, 20 October 2007 Orlady

(→Oregon lawsuit - removing some extraneous formatting and internal links (more edits are needed, but in the meantime this will make it easier to read))

1. (cur) (last) 21:12, 20 October 2007 Orlady

(fix glitch in ref callout that caused it to be a redlink)

1. (cur) (last) 21:10, 20 October 2007 Orlady

(fixed formatting of my last edit)

1. (cur) (last) 21:09, 20 October 2007 Orlady

(clarified reference to LCCC is to an article in the student newspaper (not clear that this is a RS, but will keep for now))

1. (cur) (last) 21:05, 20 October 2007 Orlady

(→Licensing - remove quotation from legislative hearing transcript (adds no factual value to article); checked to ensure that ref is not used elsewhere)

1. (cur) (last) 21:01, 20 October 2007 Orlady

(→Licensing - misc. changes; mostly removal of some of the extra internal links; also removed some semi-parenthetical statements that seem totally unnecessary here (and disrupt flow))

1. (cur) (last) 20:50, 20 October 2007 TallMagic

(→Electronic Enrollment - move up a level since this is not part of staff, (I personally think this whole section is uninformative and lacks notability.))

1. (cur) (last) 20:42, 20 October 2007 TallMagic

(→Accreditation - remove statement that doesn't apply directly to WNU especially considering that WNU has applied for accreditation)

1. (cur) (last) 20:36, 20 October 2007 TallMagic

(→Staff - remove unacceptable reference and exceedingly vague figures associated with it, please see WP:RS)

1. (cur) (last) 17:48, 20 October 2007 Orlady

(converted one paragraph into a reference to support otherwise unsupported statement in summary paragraph)

1. (cur) (last) 17:42, 20 October 2007 TallMagic

(Remove "for many years" from article summary statement that's not really supported by body article and removed fact tag)

1. (cur) (last) 17:38, 20 October 2007 Orlady

(A few changes, mostly to remove some of the excessive verbiage, excess space, and excessive internal links)

Rkowalke 00:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back Rkowalke, first a minor correction. It was not my block, it was your block because of your disruptive editting pattern. I'm not an admin and cannot block people in any case. I suggest that you try to more carefully follow Misplaced Pages policy and guidelines. I'm not sure what your point is regarding the edit history list. If the point of your edit list above is that the general quality of the article has improved and Orlady is primarily responsible then I'd have to agree. I always appreciate Orlady's edits as well. TallMagic 01:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Orlady on Excessive Piping

On 2007-10-23T00:13:40 Rkowalke made an initial edit as follows

Rkowalke m (30,256 bytes)

(→University Name Change - Fixed date to reflect a normal US date syntax when viewing...)

This change looks like this when viewed by a reader:

January 1, 2007

On 2007-10-23T02:08:22 Orlady made an edit as follows:

Orlady (Talk | contribs) (32,185 bytes)

(Undid revision 166407311 by Rkowalke

reverted excessive piping that needlessly equates "January 1" with "January 1")

Orlady's change made the date look like this by a reader:

2007-01-01

You said Orlady that you reverted needless and excessive piping, but my edit comment reflects why I changed the format, which was purposeful and not needless.

So what I'm reading Orlady is you do not want the date to look like January 1, 2007 rather you want it to look like 2007-01-01?

Rkowalke 22:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• That's very strange. You are saying that, for you, coding of ] produces text saying "January 1" but ] produces "01-01". I assure you, I see "January 1" in both cases, which is one reason why I edited numerous instances where you had coded items in the ] format. My best guess is that there are some unusual settings in your Misplaced Pages preferences. Go to Special:Preferences and see what settings appear for Date and Time (that's http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Preferences#prefsection-5 ).

It's also possible that your browser has some unusual preference settings, which could explain your pattern of sprinkling article and talk pages with <br /> codes that apparently appear necessary to you, but result in annoyingly large amounts of empty space for most of the rest of us.

For the record, both of these look the same on my screen: January 1 and January 1

--Orlady 22:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I went to my preferences and found the following:

Date format

No preference

16:12, January 15, 2001

16:12, 15 January 2001

16:12, 2001 January 15

2001-01-15T16:12:34

I had the 2001-01-15T16:12:34 syntax chosen, must've been default, and I picked 16:12, January 15, 2001 then refreshed the WNU article page and yeppers - that worked. Thanks.

Rkowalke 22:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• YAY!!!! --Orlady 23:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

undo marktwain403 revert

I just undid an apparent revert (that didn't have any comment associated with it) that seemed to go back to an old version (16:43, 20 October 2007 Marktwain403) that was missing all of the recent enhancements since October 20. Please be more selective in your edits. TallMagic 15:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Marktwain403, you first reverted to the 16:43, 20 October 2007 version of the article see here. Note that it says 43 intermediate edit versions not shown in between those two versions and there are zero differences. Then you apparently deleted more things in subsequent edits. This does not seem like a very productive edit pattern. Perhaps you could communicate on this talk page what your edits are meant to accomplish. TallMagic 06:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC) TallMagic 06:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Recent edit by user 24.234.148.133 (Las Vegas NV, Area Code 702)

The following edits were made without facts and are subjective:

Accreditation section - following sentence was added:

However, it is well known that without accreditation, credits can almost never be transferred to other universities.

Please identify fact/verifiable-source as this does not appear to be accurate.

Lead section - change made

Prior to your edit:

It has also been the subject of controversy and criticism due in part to involvement in a U.S. federal government investigation.

After your edit (bold):

It has also been the subject of controversy and criticism due in part to being a target of a U.S. federal government investigation.

The subject of the investigation does not match the word target. The word involvement more accurately represents the nature of Kennedy Western's part in the investigation.

Lead section - sentence addition

The school has moved at least twice because of difficulties with state regulators.

The school has not had difficulties with state regulators rather it had to move as a result of changes in law regarding accreditation and its desire as a post secondary institution to remain unaccredited at that time.
Input removed.
Rkowalke 00:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the school moving twice statement, Rkowalke's rebutal is false. KWU fled California not because it didn't want to be accredited but because it didn't want to more closely align its policies with academic standards. Becoming accredited was not the requirement and not the issue. Perhaps the statement should instead be changed to "The school has moved at least twice to avoid laws that required higher academic standards."? TallMagic 15:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Gee TallMagic, I'm false again? Why, my comments are based on the following:

The university was established in California in 1984. According to the Bears' Guide to College Degrees by Mail & Internet, "For a few years the state had a three-tiered system: authorized (the $50,000 rule) for entire schools, state approved (for specific programs within schools), or accredited. The authorized category was dropped, and approval was extended to entire schools, resulting in the two-tier system. At that time, dozens of schools closed down, and some of the big ones opened offices in other states: Kennedy-Western in Idaho (later Hawaii and Wyoming)..."

Sooooo what part of the blockquote do you not understand?

As you so eloquently mentioned on my personal talk page; you do "NOT" answer to me or anyone else. So why is it ok for you to think like that, but not a university? Sounds pretty hypocritical to me...

Rkowalke 22:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

You falsely claimed that KWU fled California because it didn't want to be accredited. That is False. Please stop making false statements. I don't understand your illogical connection between me/Wikipedia and KWU/accreditation. TallMagic 01:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Nope, sure did not falsely claim Kennedy Western "fled" - that's your verbiage. Suggest you learn to read the above comments a little more carefully - especially when you're the one who used the term "fled." You seem very confused.

Also, recommend you back up your statements and stop making unwarranted accusations. Your love of the word "false" without anything to back up your comments is pretty pathetic. If you're going to make comments that someone is making "false statements" then I recommend you have something to back it up with. Otherwise, you'll just have to pardon me while I yawn...

Rkowalke 00:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Fled is my word. It is a very reasonable word to use on the talk page because it is clear that KWU has fled academic fraud legislation three times. It first fled from California because becoming approved would have required more standard academic rigor than would fit into the KWU business plan. It is false that they had to be accredited to stay in California. That was what you said and that is what was false. What is it that you want me to back up? You yourself copied in the text that proved that your statement regarding California requiring accreditation was false. Fleeing Hawaii was for similar reason. KWU "moved" to Hawaii and within a few months the Hawaiian legislature created the consumer protection department and even though the Hawaiian requirements were relatively lax, KWU apparently didn't want anything to do with a state that actively enforced even weak laws. Finally, KWU fled Idaho because it didn't want to install policies that would pass standard academic rigor as required by accreditation. If you don't understand what substandard academic rigor means then I suggest you read the GAO investigation as that exposes the diploma mill tactics practiced by WNU very nicely. TallMagic 05:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

From your comments it sounds like you need to learn to do some research and to understand the proper nature of analysis and comparison models. You have much to learn and perhaps you will one day. For now, your frothy commentary speaks for itself. Pardon me while I get to something more important than your trite commentary.

Rkowalke 21:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Rkowalke, please stop invading the privacy of 24.234.148.133. At the minimum it is rude. TallMagic 05:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

No privacy being invaded TallMagic. According to Misplaced Pages the following is quoted to wit:

You are not currently logged in. While you are free to edit without logging in, your IP address (which can be used to determine the associated network/corporation name) will be recorded publicly, along with the time and date, in this page's edit history. It is sometimes possible for others to identify you with this information. Creating an account will conceal your IP address and provide you with many other benefits. Messages sent to your IP can be viewed on your talk page.

Nothing there indicates any problem with that - the user is properly informed and it is certainly no invasion of anyone's privacy. How can an IP address be considered private? Unless of course you just happen to know who the IP represents. Really TallMagic, you sure love pointing the finger. Oh and stop being so rude removing the city/state/area-code information.

Rkowalke 21:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

TallMagic and Rkowalke

I purposely refrained from editing this article in recent times because I already spent literaly hours working on it before. When I first edited the article, it was a real hatchet job by someone who did not completely understand the nature of this unaccredited University. I did my best to make it fair and unbiased. And after much arguing (some of it very bitter) we came to a compromise and the article took shape. I guess you can say I just got tired and left the editing to other people.

I do not know how you two feel but I believe that the article is fine as it is. If it will stay in its current form I would be much satisfied. I think that both of you should stop arguing over very fine points. On the whole, I think all parties involved have done good work and should be proud of their accomplishment.

I am also glad that a particularly biased party (not to name names here) had been barred from this article.

Peace

Piercetp 03:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

TallMagic, Rkowalke. I gave up on editing the article for the same reasons as Piercetp. We came to an agreement under an unbiased third party and assumed it would stand. Not true. Within weeks it was completely modified. Why can't you come to an agreement and stop haggeling over trivial points? Let's finalize the article, go somewhere else and edit other articles. Lets say its finalized and protect it to prevent further editing from the malicious editing that is occurring. It is evident that if one is banned from editing the article, they will only reappear as an ISP anon., or under a new account. This has been going on since the article was created over two years ago. As long as there is access to the article it will continue to be modified on a continuous basis. We will never get it correct or balanced with NPOV. I feel that the article is fine in its present state. Taylor W. 15:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't have a practical problem with freezing the article, except that violates Misplaced Pages policy. Misplaced Pages is open for all editors. Unfortunately that includes even biased people with conflicts of interest as well as vandals. There are Misplaced Pages policies that try to deal with these examples of the downside of having an open door policy. The open door policy is totally proven in my mind by the fact that there are over 2 million Misplaced Pages articles in English. True it can be frustrating dealing with these type of problems that come from an open door policy but I don't think that there's any policy that allows long term community "freezing" of an article? Perhaps someone else is familar with a freezing/blocking policy that I'm not aware of? TallMagic 15:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, TallMagic, I hope you live a long and exciting life editing this article. It will take endurance since you have your job cut out for you. Taylor W. 15:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Taylor, I admit that I'm both a bit bemused and confused by your response. Misplaced Pages is a hobby not a "life". Another advantage of the open door editting policy is that should I tire of it then someone else will likely come along and take my place. I'm sorry if I misunderstood your email. I guess I should have just said something along the lines of "I tend to agree with you, do you have a suggestion how this might be accomplished?" Regards, TallMagic 17:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

4. ^ http://www.wnuonlinedegrees.com/admission.asp?
5. Moonlighting for an Unaccredited University by Andrea L. Foster, The Chronicle of Higher Education, April 12, 2002
6. [http://clear.blogs.com/clear/2007/08/california-unac.html August 1, 2007
7. Oregon Office of Degree Authorization: http://www.osac.state.or.us/oda/unaccredited.aspx
8. Cite error: The named reference gazette was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
9. Institutions Whose Degrees are Illegal to Use in Texas
10. http://www.ibhe.org/Board/agendas/2001/June/item08a.pdf
11. http://janus.state.me.us/LEGIS/STATUTES/20-A/title20-Ach410.pdf
12. http://janus.state.me.us/LEGIS/STATUTES/20-A/title20-Asec10801.html
13. http://www.maine.gov/education/highered/Non-Accredited/non-accredited.htm#DL
14. http://www.michigan.gov/documents/Non-accreditedSchools_78090_7.pdf
15. http://web.hep.uiuc.edu/home/g-gollin/pigeons/
16. http://www.dcp.utah.gov/education/proprietaryschools.html
17. http://www.utahsbr.edu/policy/r470.htm
18. http://www.opm.gov/qualifications/SEC-II/s2-e4.asp
19. http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/rtf/121517x.rtf
20. http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/03jul20071500/edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2007/julqtr/pdf/32cfr67.5.pdf
21. , Ms. Susan Ishii, Director of Student Services.
22. Globeinvestor Business Wire, Oregon Settles Federal Lawsuit Filed by Kennedy-Western University, December 21, 2004.
23. Globeinvestor Business Wire, Oregon Settles Federal Lawsuit Filed by Kennedy-Western University, December 21, 2004.
24. Bears' Guide to College Degrees by Mail & Internet, 9th Edition, Ten Speed Press, ISBN-10: 1580084591.

• Start-Class Higher education articles
• WikiProject Higher education articles