User talk:TallMagic

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is my talk page. You may leave me messages here and I will probably respond here.

Contents

[edit] Hey, you mix it up well

I just want you to know that anything I said in the Warren National University talk should not be taken personally. I have passionate feelings and so do most people. But I do appreciate that you have been civil.

Increase the Peace

Tom

Piercetp 08:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the thoughtful note. I appreciate and respect your reasoned opinions. TallMagic 13:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Diploma mill

Hi, TallMagic. Could you elaborate upon your reasons for reverting my edit to the diploma mill article? I think that is is appropriate to have a picture of Patriot Bible University, an alleged diploma mill (as the caption stated), in the section of that article talking about such institutions in the United States. As for the reference, one can be added if necessary, but a reader would be better served, I think, simply by going to that article. What do you think? Jacob1207 04:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jacob1207, I agree with your point that going to the article would suffice as a reference. I have tried to better explain my thoughts regarding the picture on talk:Diploma mill#Picture_of_alleged_diploma_mill. TallMagic 14:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

I've decided to take your mediaion case at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-09-26 Warren National University alongside Concrete Complex if you have no objections. Discussion can begin right away--Phoenix 15 20:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for volunteering your time. I appreciate it. TallMagic 22:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] From GeroVital1

How could you say that I am vandalizing your page. I just add that your list is absolutely not official and does not apply legally in 49 states and in the rest of the world. Could you give me your source stating the contrary. Also are you in charge of editing this page or could i appeal to somebody higher than you. Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerovital1 (talk • contribs) 19:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Gerovital1, Please put new text in a new section at the bottom of the talk page. Also please sign all comments you place on talk pages by putting four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comment. I did not say that your recent edit to the List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning article was vandalism? I reverted the change because your statement didn't make sense to me. The ODA list is official from the government of the state of Oregon. The statement didn't seem to make sense to me. As another example, there are many more references than just the ODA listed in the article. The List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning article is not my page. Disputes on Wikipedia are common. There's an official dispute resolution hierachy of actions. The first step is to voice your opinion on the talk (discussion) page associated with the article. The vast majority of content disputes are resolved that way. Talk:List_of_unaccredited_institutions_of_higher_learning TallMagic 20:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I made the changes you suggested

It seems like a reasonable compromise.

I will continue to keep an eye on the article. I do hope we can continue to work together to keep this article fair and ballanced.

If I seem high strung than I am sorry. I do care passionately for issues I care about. I sense that you are the same way. Just don't take it personally. Piercetp (talk) 07:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Piercetp, I decided long ago that you're a good guy. It will take far more than a discussion over article content to sway that conclusion. I appreciate your contribution to Wikipedia. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 16:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks you for your advice

I appreciate your suggestions on how to best make the University of Phoenix page appropriately neutral and informative.17reasons (talk) 23:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] archive.org

For your future use: Archive.org often has copies of web content that is no longer available on the original source, such as this article about some diploma mills. --Orlady (talk) 18:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Good job!! Thanks, TallMagic (talk) 18:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] From a poor country boy/as you seem balanced

Dear TallMagic, First I want to feel free in my conversation with you, so if you do not insist, I would like to conceal my full introduction. I am an international reader of wikipedia. I love it. Coincidentally, I am an ex-student of Bircham International University. I am from a very poor country and also from a poor family. This university gave me the chance to study fully free of cost, even without any admission form fees. They had their investigation about my will to study and quality to avail 100% scholarship before they grant me such. Now after availing the education (not necessarily the degree) I have gained much strength to read and learn more. I am doing a better job in a better field. In fact I am involved with some good international researches. In our country, distance education is like a sin! So I had to face too much hatred too about the way I'm gaining knowledge. But at the end of the day, when my performance improved, my wounds healed to some extent. Dear sir/madam, if wikipedia is meant only for reading of the US or other very first class countries I do not have anything to say. But if you say this encyclopedia should reach every corner of the world for every one, then I must say whenever I read the article Bircham International University, my head bows down in shame in reminds me of the hatred of those that hate distance education in my country no matter which institute is providing it - Harvard or University of London. May be there are many information that describes the article very correctly for all, but not necessarily able to make equally clear impression for people from different places.

Though the current condition of the article has changed, and I have no formal objection about it. But to make wikipedia a truly international encyclopedia, shouldn't the articles be more universal, I mean it should make more or less similar impression in almost all readers? Why do I feel that it is rather a negative kind of article than a neutral one? For example, its introduction could avoid both negative and positive information. I read the discussions and I saw some references are regarded for use and some are disregarded just because of the lack of language skill!! Shouldn't such people be expelled from an international encyclopedia editing? If you deny to accept wiki as universal or international, I do not have any problem. But if you don't, then do not write an article till you have the complete information. Many might think that what they know is complete, but, humbly, this should not be an attitude of any encyclopedian. We all can seek help for more perfection, thats no shame!

Finally, I found you as a positive or at least a balanced kind of editor and thus wrote so much. Please forgive me for such a long letter. But I /we want to read wiki as an international/universal encyclopedia, not a typical English culture patterned one. I have also gained distance/online education (fully free of any tuition fees) from Harvard and Johns Hopkins. The certificates and degrees are different, but knowledges were the same from all the places. Why should we ashame education/knowledge just for degree granting capacity? Isn't it a mill like attitude too, though legal mill!!

Forgive me for concealing my name. I am weak and I might not be able to tolerate any direct blow from any diehard (respectfully) wikipedian.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.112.199.51 (talk) 17:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! For a general introduction to Wikipedia, you may find it interesting to visit wp:welcome. Regarding use of your name, it is perfectly okay to create an online handle. For example, Tallmagic is not my real name. Wikipedia editors are for the most part very friendly and helpful. It is strongly encouraged that we treat everyone with respect to encourage positive participation in the Wikipedia community. I believe that you'll find that Wikipedia is international and has a large number of articles in languages other than English. Although English is the largest of the branches of Wikipedia. I'm truly sorry that I only speak English. I don't think that should disqualify me from editting BIU. BIU is an article in English. I suspect what you may be referring to is my request for help in understanding some links to information provided by user:Bircham? One of the wonderful things about Wikipedia is that it is reasonable to request this kind of assistance and there's many helpful editors that are more than willing to help. TallMagic (talk) 19:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm very happy that you found high value in your studies at BIU. I'm sorry that distance learning is viewed so negatively in your country. I think that there are many people around the world that have confused diploma mills with distance learning and that is a sad tragedy. Regarding your point about doing complete research before writing an article, that is the proper way to do a paper in school, for example. That model does not always work so well where there are many people working on many articles. Before I ever did any edits on the BIU article, it already existed. I have just tried to improve it. It is okay to write negative and positive things about an article subject. Whether the information in the article is positive or negative depends on the information available in the reliable sources that are available. An important Wikipedia policy though is that whether the information is positive or negative it must be presented in a neutral tone. Welcome again to Wikipedia and thank you for your comments. TallMagic (talk) 19:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
You are truly welcome. It is nice to learn the themes. May be someday I will chose you for getting wise suggestions on complicated matters. Forgive me for my harsh comments, please! In fact I have faced so much embarrassments in relation to my distance education (while everyone was very fond of the degree only) that I have forgotten about nice people like you!! May be someday we will have e-mail communication without any wiki issue, just as friends. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.112.199.51 (talk) 01:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Again

Dear Tallmagic, I have edited the Bircham article to some extent. I hope I have not done anything as blindly biased. I hope I have not spoiled your article effort!! Regards The Poor country boy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.112.199.43 (talk) 18:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] March 2008

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, which wasn't included with your recent edit to Electronic learning. Thank you. DiligentTerrier and friends 01:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay DiligentTerrier, I guess I was somewhat confused by the Undo message that says to add an edit summary if the undo was not for spam or vandalism. You're correct, it is better to be more explicit. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 03:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WVU Academic Fraud

Hello. I saw that you made a few edits to the WVU Academic Fraud/MBA Controversy. I think that this deserves its own article, since it is too complicated to adequately explain on the WVU homepage and it would not fit well in any biography pages. I have started a draft of such an article here:User:TheZachMorrisExperience/WVU. If you can make any suggestion or edits, it would be appreciated. I'd like to get this article into good shape before putting it in the mainspace and subject to AFD or other attacks. Thanks!--TheZachMorrisExperience (talk) 19:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Miscommunication

Sorry about the miscommunication regarding the blog link on the UoP article. I've really appreciated your input regarding the article thus far! Best --Eustress (talk) 01:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Eustress, thank you for your efforts. The University of Phoenix article is improved and I appreciate it. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 02:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Withdrawal notice

I will no longer be editing University of Phoenix and just wanted to inform you personally, so that my withdrawal wouldn’t be misconstrued as trying to come off “the better editor” or something. I’ve weighed the costs and benefits of pursuing my feelings regarding edits on the article and feel that it would be best for everyone if I stepped aside. I hope you understand. Best wishes for you and Wikipedia. --Eustress (talk) 18:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy Deletion templates

Hi just thought you should know that they go on the main article and not on an articles discussion page as you did with Global English UK. In addition, if you do decide to nominate it, you don't put your signature after it either, just the template. In addition, "because it's unclear what this article is even supposed to be about. There's no references.." is not a valid reason for an article to be speedily deleted. There are a lot of unreferenced articles on wikipedia. It is clear what the article is about. If you think it is non-notable then you should "prod" it really. Thanks.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 21:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, TallMagic (talk) 22:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CMU Page

Just responding to your message left on the CMU site. Thank you for the info.

I have a name now and it is Viewer111. I read your response and I am a bit puzzled. I do not believe I violated the 3 reversion rule. I made the the intial change to the article and posted it. I didn't realize I needed to provide an edit summary at the time. When Orlady reverted the artilce, I saw her response. I then reverted the article one time. I goofed up on the revision and didn't add the edit sumary so I went right back in and added a summary so all could see my reasoning. Total revisions on CMU site, 1.

I appreciate your advise. In the future I will make edits in smaller chunks. However, the changes did quote sources and in many cases they were the exact sources already within the article. It seems the original posters picked material that supported their point of view without either reading the entire article/report or reading it and slanting their edits in a manner that made their particular point. If I am not mistaken, that too is a violation of the Wikipedia rules on Neutral Point of View.

My list of changes are summarized below. Please tell me which ones you don't agree with:

  1. CMU is Califonria State Approved. The references to this fact are given through the State of Californai site provided.
  2. Under accreditation, the verbage of the U.S.D.O.E. specifically talks about State Approved schools in the article that was already cited. This speicific verbage was added and cited. It did not state CMU was accredited, only added the exact wording form the USDOE website and the fact that CMU has been state approved since 1996 which can be verified at the Calironia State Websie already provided.
  3. A change in label from Controversy to Controversy Before the Change of Ownership was added. All the items in the Controversy section occured before the change of ownership of PWU-CA/CMU as referenced by the Paul Thacker article. If we want to state all the controversy of the University, it is fair to put things in a factual context.
  4. Information on GOA Report was expanded. The exact same references quoted were cited. The GAO report defined their terms of what was a diploma mill and what was an unaccredited school within the report. Earlier contributors simply used the name of the report to draw a conclusion that when is taken in it's complete context, is incorrect. PWU-CA was a California State Approved school at the time. So was one of the other schools, California Coast University. Wikipedia contributors made the same broad sweeping conclusion on CCU at the time and persited even after CCU gained national accreditation. It looks like those Wikipedia contributors violoted the nutral point of view rule in this case as well.
  5. A similar item happened in the previous quote about the govenment of Sweeden cite. The information in the article is not only wrong, but seemingly bias. If you review the article, as my revision states, PWU-CA is not the subject of the article and its inflamitory title at all. The only reference to PWU-CA is the picture of its website page as of 2005 with the warning don't assume a school is accredited simply because it has a .edu in its title. Please review the report and see if PWU-CA name appears anywhere else in the report. It does not.
  6. The reference to the KVOA article is still cited. However, since the KVOA team call PWU-CA a diploma mill in their article referencing the GOA report, and the GAO Report does not make such a distinction, this is incorrect information about the school. It should either be ammended or removed in this regard.
  7. A disclaimer to the mention of Barry McSweeny reference is added to the site. As you know there were two separate PWU's from 1988 until 2006. The warning at the top of the edit page attests to this fact. Earlier contributors assumed that anyone who had a PWU degree was from the California school. That is not a verifable fact. I have access to the student records at CMU and Mr. McSweeny never was a student of PWU California. He may have been a PWU Hawaii graduate. If Wikipedia will not accept the records from PWU California as verification of this fact then certainly Wikipedia has rules to take off the entire reference if there is doubt and it cannot be confirmed as to which PWU was being referenced.
  8. The unamaed graduate from Austrailia that was removed and is a ditto to the explaination in items 7.
  9. The names of alumni not found in the PWU-CA/CMU database were removed due to the explanation in item 7 above.

In closing, it its not my intent to be troublesome or generate anymore animostiy over this site than has been shown in the past. I have read many of the behind the scenes correspondence on this page. I think that it is clear to see most contributors had a very definite point of view on this page as evidenced by actions in locking the site for months by Brad Patrick.

Every item that was changed is cited and hopefully neutral in nature. It may not appear neurtral to some because of the "my minds made up, don't confuse me with conflicting facts" syndrome. If I have not been neutral, then change those items. That is not my intent. I am only trying to make sure correct, unbias information is on the site.

I certainly expect to be allowed to make my edits in the near future. The fact that the website was locked due to "vandalism" only goes to show that whomever is "guarding" this site may have an agenda that is not in keeping with the Wikipedia rules. I hope this is not the case, and that the site is opened back up. I don't mind playing by the rules, but I want a level playing field where noone is given speacial treatment or privledges.

I look forward to your comments.

Viewer111 (talk) 16:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia Viewer111. I sincerely appreciate your desire to improve the CMU article. I hope that you decide you like the place and decide to contribute to many other articles that might interest you. Wikipedia is generally a very friendly place. I believe it fosters a positive team atmosphere. It is expected that team members can have different point of view and even disagreements. These can usually be worked through when the wp:Assume_good_faith guideline is followed by the team members. This is very important to remember when dealing with one's team members on Wikipedia. I firmly believe that the actions of Orlady and Swatjester were taken because of their firm belief in Wikipedia and our policies and guidelines.TallMagic (talk) 17:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
It appears that you have some inside information regarding CMU. You'll need to be careful to keep separate wp:reliable_source information from your inside information. Wikipedia must be based on wp:verifiable information from wp:reliable_sources. It can't be based on any other kind of information. Perhaps you could help me out on a personal curiosity though? I understand that CMU has applied for accreditation. I was wondering if you happened to know how that process was progressing? TallMagic (talk) 17:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Still working on my more detailed response. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 17:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

TallMagic

Thank you for the quick response. I expect to spend alot of time on Wikipedia on this and other articles in the future. It takes a bit to get used to the standard operating procedure, but I think I'm getting the hang of it. It's quite fun and exciting.

I think you will find upon your review that all of my edits are well sourced and verifiable. Those of past students of the generic PWU need to be examined however for reasons I stated earlier. The only item I didn't address in my earlier response, was the deletion of all sentences that concern PWU Hawaii. That school has it's own site and those references should be addressed in that forum via links.

I didn't mean to insinuate that Orlady had any imporper motives. Her references are correct. When I reset my changes I added the explaination that I didn't know I need before Orlady's reset. I needed to learned the ropes. I felt that if contributors would have looked at the changes and verified the resources that were linked to the changes, the site would have not been set back.

I am just curious and concerned that the site was locked for Vandalism when according to Wikipedia rules on Vandalism are very clear and percise but were not followed. This seemingly is an extreme action and is suppose to require a warning to the alleged first violator (me). The very nature of the changes that were made in no way approach Wikipedia's definition of the act of Vandalism. I explained the nature of the changes when doing my one and only reset. They were not vandalism.

I am hard pressed to see any violations of any Wikipedia policy in my actions. If I violated the 3 revision rule, how? You can count the revisions in history. There was one. If you can identify some policies I have violoated, I will be happy to listen and modify my actions immediately to be in compliance.

To answer your question about CMU. As you know, a college in the accredition process is precluded from saying anything about the matter. A thought that might help you would be to re-read the Paul Thacker article from 2006. He addresses this issue accurately in his article.

I await your more detailed response. Warmest Regards, Viewer111 (talk) 19:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Archive.org

Unfortunately, they don't archive every page on the web. Apparently the page you asked about is one they missed... --Orlady (talk) 22:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)