User talk:LEU Truth Squad

Welcome!

Hello, LEU Truth Squad, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Jokestress (talk) 18:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

"Truth squad"?

You're beating up on an organization (LaSalle Extension University) that's been out of business for over 20 years. What's that all about? Did they wrong you in some way? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

What started you on this crusade? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't know how to communicate with you - hope this works.

Our efforts are legitimate and properly intentioned. There is an individual who has been claiming for years that a Ph.D. was conferred by LEU in 2000 and using that bogus claim to present to employers as being academically qualified to assume leadership positions in the health care industry (currently a CEO for a small rural hospital). As you no doubt know, LEU closed in 1981 (ISBE) and never offered any degree above a Bachelors (again ISBE).

This same individual because of this claim of academic credentials of a Ph.D. from LEU last year accepted an invitation to a White House sponsored event on National Security planning and was also quoted in a National Security article - all as academically qualified and credentialed to be addressed as "Dr" and make authoritative comments, offer qualified recommendations, etc.

Now - do YOU want someone like that using Wikipedia to support his false academic claims by removing legitimate information backed up by a department phone number for the Closed Schools Department of the Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE)? Trying to prevent this individual from using Wikipedia in support of his bogus Ph.D. claims from LEU - is why we got involved in re-entering the information as often as it is removed by the individual. If you need specifics from the ISBE proving that the Ph.D. claim is absolutely bogus - provide a way to forward an email from the ISBE to you or to Wikipedia.

LEU Truth Squad (talk) 23:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I see. Well, first, wikipedia is not a "reliable source". And while you're calling yourself "LEU Truth Squad", it's not LEU that's lying, it's that guy, "SO-AND-SO". Maybe you should be "SO-AND-SO Truth Squad"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

With every respect intended - NEITHER Wikipedia NOR the individual are "lying" in the "context" of your statement (explanation follows). The matter of "lying" has never been the issue nor what we are trying to address by keeping correct information available to Wikipedia's reading public.

The issue is that (1) ABSENT from the Wikipedia article on LEU is verifiable information regarding the LIMITS placed upon what LEU could award/confer following the completion of coursework. Specific to their general coursework, LEU was never authorized (nor did they ever attempt) to offer a Masters - or - a Ph.D. in ANY subject. That information AND the contact information necessary to verify that statement as fact is what is being re-entered as necessary when the individual removes it to perpetuate the sham of academic credentials that were never earned nor conferred (nor could they have been given the school's closing almost twenty years before the individual claims to have received a Ph.D. in 2000) - so - (2) our reinserting the correct and verifiable information to thwart the individual's efforts to conceal the truth by removing it from the Wikipedia article on LEU (regardless of the "not a reliable source" reputation) is being done in the hope that anyone searching for correct information about LEU (and by association to compare with any individual improperly claiming degrees from it as this individual and a few others are doing) may hopefully be served if they look at the right time when it is there (before being removed again as the individual seems intent upon doing).

Hopefully this expanded explanation will help you to understand why using "SO-AND-SO Truth Squad" is not appropriate. Since we ARE entering the truth for EVERYONE'S benefit (except the individual's), we really do not believe our "Nom de Plume" is innapropriate. WE - are not lying, WIKIPEDIA - is not lying, and as far as the individual "lying", that is being done by forcing "the absense of truth" by the removal of the information damning to the individual's self-aggrandizing agenda. That is what distinguishes "us" from the "individual". What we are attempting to do for the good of the (honest) whole whereas what the individual is attempting to do serves only him/her. Hope this helps understand what we are attempting to do - and why.LEU Truth Squad (talk) 01:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Just make sure your citations are solid. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

They (the citations we are providing) are absolutely "iron-clad"!

Anyone who doubts can call the Illinois State Board of Education, Closed Schools Department at (217)782-2948 and ask if LEU was ever authorized to issue either a Masters Degree or a Ph.D. upon the completion of ANY coursework.

The answer will be "no" and that - and no more than that - is all we are entering into the Wikipedia site on LEU.

It is regrettable that Wikipedia is being subjected to this sort of abuse by an dishonest and unscrupulous individual (as well as taking our time to do what can be done to counter) but that is unfortunately the world we live in. Remain assured that we will not abuse the Wikipedia arrangement. It is a great service which we ourselves have often enjoyed and turned to for at least consideration of a topic's presentation (especially when legitimate citations with which information can be validated are present in the article).

We do appreciate knowing that someone is "watching" and willing to challenge activity that merits concern to rule-in/rule-out potential abuse.LEU Truth Squad (talk) 12:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The results of a phone call would not be considered a reliable source. That's assuming anyone else is even watching this page, though. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Meanwhile, who is "we"? That is, how many of you are there? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Good morning - you are up early as well :)

Upon request - any phone call could be followed-up by either a confirming email coming from the Closed Schools Department of the ISBE complete with responding person's name, position, phone number, and department all under the ISBE's electronic communication signature and/or "hard mail" (postal) if requested. This exact process (first phone discussion, then confirming email/postal mail) was done during our own investigation (about what LEU was certified to issue upon completion of coursework) to make sure documentation that would stand up in court or to any other challenge was in place if ever needed.

To respond to your later question - there are several of "us" who are very familiar with the individual (including an attorney hired to investigate the claimed credentials which resulted in the individual being fired for credentials fraud). Unfortunately in this country there are few states that have laws in place to deal with credentials fraud and since no public record has ever been created by an employer being able to sue versus simply dismissing for such fraud, the individual has moved on to a new employer (who up until recently was unsuspecting). "We" suspect the current level of attention being given by the individual to removing the information of LEU not being certified to issue Masters or Ph.D. degrees from the Wikipedia site on LEU may be prompted by having to consider moving on again given that the current employer has been alerted (with verifiable documentation provided). Have a good day.LEU Truth Squad (talk) 13:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Naming convention

Good Morning Baseball_Bugs :)

A minor point - but in the interest of accuracy - the Wikipedia site for LaSalle Extension University has the "La" distinct from "Salle" - also throughout much of the text.

While that is how the early Illinois explorer's name (after whom the street was named in Chicago) was spelled, no one in Chicago separates the name. It is "LaSalle" (as shown here) - even as your Wikipedia's site has it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LaSalle_Street

Since you have administrator capabilities and/or are able to discuss with the staff/administration of Wikipedia - why not go ahead and be consistent in both sites with the spelling of LaSalle regarding LaSalle Extension University.

This is also, by-the-way, why we chose LEU instead of LSEU - because Chicago natives consider LaSalle Extension University to be three words not four as in La Salle Extension University.

Just a suggestion - and have a good day.LEU Truth Squad (talk) 13:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I could probably do a page move - provided you can find me a valid citation, in case someone challenges it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The school itself styled it both ways, as these three reproductions of ads show: [1][2][3] That probably gets us into the realm of what the company's "legal name" was. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello Bugs

Not intending to be argumentive, but on the matter of LaSalle Extension University being styled 'both ways' with the "La" distinct from "Salle" (as in La Salle) - or - with the "L" and the "S" capitalized (as in LaSalle) - I propose for consideration that if you look more closely at the examples of the school's promotional materials provided you will see that it is not a matter of "two" ways of displaying the name but a matter of the subtle differences between the CHARACTERISTICS in the two type-styles used by the school when spelling the same word (LaSalle) used in the examples provided.

In the Script-Style, note the letters do NOT "connect" with either the preceding or following letters so a casual glance at the script-styled name may SEEM to appear as "La Salle" (compared with the Block-Style also shown) but this does not take into consideration that each of the script letters STAND ALONE. This is especially noticable where a Capital letter sits next to a lower case letter. When this type style "characteristic" is taken into account, both the script and block letters are displaying in print "LaSalle" as one word in reflection of the longtime location of the school on Chicago's LaSalle street which is appears everywhere (as far as we have ever seen around town) as one word with the "L" and the "S" capitalized. Again, not being argumentative, just proposing a different way of looking at how the school displayed its name by giving attention to the characteristics of the fonts used. Have a nice Thanksgiving all. LEU Truth Squad (talk) 17:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The school is spelled "La Salle" by the Chicago Tribune, the New York Times, and the Federal Trade Commission, as well as by LSEU itself. See the references in the article for confirmation. It's styled both "La Salle" and "LaSalle." Jokestress (talk) 18:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

As I pointed out before, the school itself spelled it both ways. At this point it's unclear which way was the "official" way to spell it. Maybe they were both official. It's kind of like LaSalle Street, which was also named after an explorer who spelled it "La Salle". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

La Salle Extension University

Thanks for your work on the La Salle Extension University article. Reporting on the contents of a phone call is considered original research. Original research is not acceptable on Wikipedia. We need a published source for claims of these types.

In addition, LSEU is known to have offered a law degree (LL.B.) which was later the subject of FTC action. We need to present any information with a neutral point of view. Stating "only a few Associates and a few Bachelors Degrees were ever authorized" is not neutral; it is a negative spin on the facts. We should either list the degrees offered, state the number of degrees, or state things without saying "only a few" or other denigrating language.

What would be ideal is to quote a book or newspaper article about LSEU and what it offered. This can include their own promotional material (their ads often ran in Popular Mechanics and other publications).

Finally, Wikipedia has policies regarding conflict of interest. It's clear from your user name that you are a single-purpose account here to work on this article, and I assume it's because of an off-wiki conflict with someone who has made claims about an LSEU education. This type of editing is discouraged and can get you blocked if it rises to the level of disruption.

I hope this answers your questions. Thanks again for your work on the article. Jokestress (talk) 18:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

With every respect intended to all in this discussion (and with appreciation for the courteous phrasing and helpful suggestions/directions offered), without trying to address each and every point from the preceding comments we suggest that perhaps an application of Occam’s' Razor to the argumentations being advanced may be helpful in drawing the central issue into sharper focus.

According to the Wikipedia protocol for a valid entry that has been put forth in these exchanges - an LEU/LSEU ad appearing in a 1949 Popular Mechanics (the magazine example used) is accorded more credibility and respect as the validation for a citation than an up-to-date response from the state agency (ISBE) that oversaw and controlled what LEU/LSEU was authorized to convey upon completion of coursework.

Again with all due respect - anyone else see the problem with this rationalle?

Consider as an example, the following scenario in relation to Wikipedia's "published source" protocol for establishing credibility for citation purposes.

An old magazine ad inserted by the LEU/LSEU marketing department (which let's further say offered a Ph.D. in some subject) is challenged by a modern day response from the Illinois State Board of Education contradicting the ad stating the school was never authorized to convey any such degree - as in stating "...no one could have received a Ph.D. from LaSalle Extension because they only offered a few BA degrees and an Associate’s" (actual quotation from correspondence in hand dated Tue, 1 Sep 2009, Illinois State Board of Education, Division Phone 217-782-2948).

Hopefully all here would agree, that in a "real-life" example of this scenario, the Wikpedia criterion for a "published source" would need to be reviewed and ammended accordingly to allow greater flexibility (than is apparently the case now) in judging between the quality of competing sources being appealed to for support of content.

Yet in effect - the removal of factual material based upon the demand for a citable published source of material entered by us into the site specific to this topic is what is happening - but the demand for a published source is impossible to accommodate because a state agency does not "publish" material in the same way as does a magazine or newspaper from which a citation can be drawn. What they WILL do, however, is respond to inquiry and provide every bit as credible information as anything they would have published had that been within the scope of what they do as a state agency.

Given that the previous quotation was from written documentation from the ISBE available to anyone who asks for it, the comment entered into the site that LEU only offered Associates and a few Bachelor degrees was therefore neither a "negative spin" on the "facts", nor was it not "neutral", neither was it "denigrating language". It was simply a statement of FACT - neither spin nor negativity nor denigration attached.

If access to "a published source" from which a citation can be drawn remains the sole criterion for acceptance of contributed material into an article remains as inflexible as it apparently is (again pursuant to the descriptions advanced in these discussions), then the accuracy of the content in EVERY Wikipedia article it threatened by the prospect of rejection of an authoritative source (such as the ISBE) simply because it did not/does not publish material (as in a list of the certificates/degrees LEU/LSEU was authorized to convey upon the completion of coursework). Such an action simply is not what a state agency like the ISBE does.

Our goal is also the accuracy several of you have expressed as desiring to accomplish. We submit for the consideration of all, therefore, that as the overseeing state agency of LEU/LSEU - the Illinois State Board of Education's willingness to respond to any inquiry and provide verbal or written confirmation that the school never offered a Masters or Doctorate in any subject should be the most acceptable source for citation in support of material entered into the Wikipedia LEU/LSEU site - not a forty year old ad in a magazine.

In closing this response, perhaps to avoid continuous debate on this matter and before arriving at a state wherein those participating "agree to disagree", we will approach Wikipedia through the resolution arrangment suggested by Jokestress and appeal for acceptance of validating information from ISBE provided to anyone considered appropriate to receive it so that the accurate information we have been attempting to have included in the Wikipedia site on LEU/LSEU will be acceptable.

(Any all-CAPS words were for emphasis (not shouting) and all comments were intended with respect and not to cause offense to anyone. If any was taken, our sincere apologies) LEU Truth Squad (talk) 00:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs - your reference to us as "LEU Truth Fairy Squad" in the Article's History section, revision of 11/26/09, is both underserved as well as offensive and mean-spirited.

We have treated all with respect, including our exchanges with you, and our documentation that LEU/LSEU was never authorized to convey any advanced degree above a Bachelor's is absolutely "iron clad", most especially so when contrasted to any 30 or 40 year old magazine or newspaper ad (the LL.B LEU/LSEU conveyed is a different category of academic degree than a Masters or Doctorate and besides, pointing to their LL.B for support that they offered advance degrees fails to convince since that process did not prove to be viable either given the trouble and eventual outcome the school experienced with the FTC for conveying it).

Trying to be as objective as you can be - ask yourself this question:

Outside of Wikipedia and the mandate of a "published source" for citation (as we understand it from descriptions provided herein by others), if the issue of whether or not LEU/LSEU ever offered advanced degrees was being contended in a court of law - which do you think would win the debate based upon the evidence of whether or not LEU/LSEU was ever authorized to convey any degree above a Bachelor's:

- What the Illinois State Board of Education says about the matter - or

- A page featuring an ad from something like a 1949 Popular Mechanics wherein nothing in the ad ever mentions a Masters or Doctorate being offered?

In point-of-fact, FIND A SINGLE EXAMPLE from any LEU/LSEU promotional piece or other school paraphernalia that says a Masters or Doctorate is offered in ANY subject - and provide it along with other examples of their materials that are now hyperlinked in the article to retrieve for viewing.

Given your sarcastic and derisive reference to us as the "LEU Truth Fairy Squad", we hope you will review the evidences available and come to respect that our position all along has been based upon the most credible source - that provided by the ISBE that oversaw LEU/LSEU's academic programs and the certificates/degrees they were (and were not) authorized to convey.

Please assume good faith with other editors. User:Baseball Bugs did not call you names. Someone registered the account User:LEU Truth Fairy Squad, probably one of the people you are fighting with off-wiki.

You are exactly correct that Wikipedia can use a published LSEU advertisement but cannot use statements made during a phone call to ISBE. Wikipedia citations have to be verifiable in reliable third-party sources. Your phone conversation is not verifiable. It's called hearsay in legal language. We need published citations so others can verify the statements made.

We do not need to add a sentence stating that LSEU did not offer a Masters or Doctorate unless that has appeared in a published source. The article should contain only relevant facts that have appeared in published sources. We don't need to list what a school doesn't offer unless that has appeared in a reliable source and is relevant. For instance, we don't need to say "Harvard doesn't offer automotive repair courses" unless that has appeared in a published source. It's not relevant. To summarize:

• If we have a reliable source that states the school offered Masters or Doctorate degrees, that information should be in the article.
• Unless we have a reliable source that states the school did not offer Masters or Doctorate degrees, that information should not be in the article.

Finally, Wikipedia is not a battleground where you can settle off-wiki scores. Please abide by the rules when adding information. Jokestress (talk) 16:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Jokestress - thank you for your entry on this matter.

An apology is extended to Baseball Bugs. We were unaware someone had ripped-off the registration of “LEU Truth Squad” and mocked it with their own registration as “LEU Truth Fairy Squad”. Since there had been several previous exchanges with Baseball Bugs, we presumed incorrectly that that writer had resorted to this derisive usage because of some change of opinion of us.

Secondly – no material entered has been ever been based upon a phone call but re-quoted from sent material in response to an inquiry into what degrees LEU/LSEU was authorized to convey by the ISBE. That material bears the official imprimatur of the Illinois State Board of Education, Closed Schools Department. The phone number for the ISBE shown in citation is for the convenience for anyone who wishes to request verbal or written validation that entered statements have been correct and correctly represented.

Unpublished communication is considered original research. You may have faithfully reproduced the contents of the communication, but it's not acceptable as a reliable source. Please review the linked policies above. Jokestress (talk) 20:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Username

You have stated you are a group of three people. User accounts can only represent individuals. Sharing an account – or the password to an account – with others is not permitted, and doing so will result in the account being blocked. See Wikipedia:Username#Sharing_accounts. Also, your username appears to be inappropriate because it would be classified as offensive or disruptive. Please discontinue use of this account and change your username as described at Wikipedia:Username#Changing_your_username. Thanks. Jokestress (talk) 16:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Please look for a response in the manner of our previous exchange

If you are more than one person, then you need one account apiece. Changing your username would also be advisable, as it's liable to get blocked eventually for built-in controversy. As regards that other user ID, "LEU Truth Fairy Squad", it has only made one (reverted) entry. If it turns up again, I'll take it to WP:AIV and get it blocked. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs - with all due respect to all, this is becoming "much ado about nothing" with regard to our registered User Name - presumably because of a lack of understanding regarding the usage “we” and what that represents.

First - the "we" as explained in a previous exchange is to reflect that there are three individuals with extensive knowledge of LaSalle Extension University (either being a Chicago native or long time resident). One of “us” is a non-Chicagoan who was commissioned by a major organization to investigate what degrees LEU/LSEU was authorized to convey upon completion of course material who had extensive contact with the Illinois State Board of Education for that purpose.

Secondly – only one individual writes in behalf of the three after consultation with all to be sure that what is entered reflects the appropriate position concurrent with the combined knowledge of all just described. In observance of Wikipedia rules regarding registered participants, only one individual (the same individual accessing the site each time) has the password.

In summary, only one individual writes and accesses the account but all three collaborate on what is entered before that is done. The “we” usage, therefore, is no more than a grammatical reference to the fact that there are three of us who discuss responses to entries (such as this one) to be sure all are in accord with the accuracy of what is presented.

Accordingly - there IS no violation of Wiki terms of service in this arrangement because there are not three nor two but only one active participant accessing the site and entering material under the User Name of "LEU Truth Squad".

Next, it would be very interesting if you and/or Jokestress can determine if the registrant for "LEU Truth Fairy Squad" is the same individual that Jokestress rescinded on November 26 @ 01:23 (327963689).

Finally, it should be coming more into focus for both of you who are being kept quite busy recending/removing/undoing/and reverting entries of those who have been busy removing YOUR work - that there are a number of individuals out there who are working very hard to keep certain truths about LEU/LSEU out of the article. What you and Jokestress are seeing - speaks to the issue we have been trying to call attention to that there are those who are benefiting from LEU/LSEU closed school status because there is no one home to respond to inquiry. Their purposes are well served by those who "play by the rules" to keep verifiable information out of sight based upon current Wiki protocols because they do not have to exert as much energy to do that job themselves. Believe it! That is not "conspiracy theory" paranoia, evidence of such efforts by a few pretender-graduates can be seen in more than one site dedicated to LEU/LSEU.

"We", for our part, have not exaggerated nor misrepresented a single documentable, verifiable, truth in anything ever entered into the article - so if we have not done these things - where is the "built-in controversy" you say is represented by our User Name and that Jokestress described with words such as "inappropriate", "offensive", and "disruptive"?

Making this official. Please change your name. I do not wish to have a long discussion about it. It was chosen to attack/mock people with whom you have a dispute.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because your name is inflammatory and suggests you are here solely to extend an off-wiki dispute. It was offensive enough for someone to try to offend you in return by making a similar name. It is disruptive because it suggests other editors are liars.. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may file for a change of username, or you may simply create a new account and use that for editing. Thank you. Jokestress (talk) 04:07, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

If you are the only one actually editing, then I don't think there's a problem on that score. Your user ID, though, as I was trying to get at when I first posted here, is not only single-purpose, but is also confrontational. If you don't change your user ID voluntarily, then it will get reported to WP:UAA and then you run the risk of either being forced to change it, or of being blocked. As regards that troll called "LEU Truth Fairy Squad", I don't have admin or checkuser capabilities, so I have no clue where it came from or whether it can be tied to another user ID. And since it only made one entry, a checkuser probably wouldn't be interested in investigating it. If that problem accelerates, it could worth pursuing a sockpuppet investigation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The IP address in question 74.127.72.145 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) geolocates to Monterrey, Virginia, if that means anything. There's no way for non-admins to geolocate a registered user ID, though. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Jokestress - without a lot of discussion as you wish, the User Name "LEU Truth Squad" was not chosen to "attack/mock people with whom you have a dispute" - it was chosen to reflect that whatever material was entered into the site's text IS the truth and that even the simplist steps to verify that material would validate the imputed "claim" (if you will) contained in the User Name.

With all due respect, you seem to continue to be of the opinion that our motives are purely personnal and as to the statement, "...it suggests other editors are liars", again no offense but if you search back through several years of edits you will discover that in-point-of-fact that are many mistatements of fact or outright incorrect statements (**) - so whether or not deliberate lying was involved or the entry was simply a matter of the writer not being correctly informed - others will have to decide.

(**) PLEASE NOTE - no accusation of "lying" is being advanced here because the example and date of the site's content was selected ONLY to show a one page version containing the following example (again not to say the editor of that date entered the line of text or had anything to do with it). The following example, therefore, is only to generically demonstrate that false/incorrect data accompanied by a citation that did not "prove out" has been entered into the site on more than one occasion. The example: "The business school records are contained in the archives of the University of Chicago" (is from 5 October 2009).

Following up on the citation, [4] - no information supporting the claim that the business school records of graduates/transcripts were held in any University of Chicago History archive. If anyone can find a different outcome from this site that supports the citation given, please post. The only official archive of LEU/LSEU transcripts is maintained by the Illinois State Board of Education, Closed Schools Department.

Finally - these points have only been entered to offer a "benchmark" against which to compare what others have entered versus what has been entered under the User Name of LEU Truth Squad - which has ALWAYS been verifiable by simply contacting the Illinois State Board of Education, Closed Schools department which maintains all records of transcripts conveyed by LEU/LSEU (because obviously no one is available from LEU/LSEU to accommodate a request for that information).

A new User Name will be chosen to end the "controversy" you describe is being caused by "LEU Truth Squad" - even though everything that has been posted is exactly that - the truth.

Baseball Bugs - please review the response to Jokestress for response applicable to both messages. As to the geolocation of the unnamed editor of Nov 26 @ 01:07 being from Monterey, VA - there is an individual in that area known to claim a Ph.D. from LEU/LSEU from 2000 (basically two decades after the school closed)

Also as stated to Jokestress, a new User Name and/or "change of name" will be initiated to end all this dust-up about whatever the current User Name carries as an imputed meaning per the opinions expressed.

Regards to all

ANI notice

Hello, LEU Truth Squad. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. GiantSnowman 20:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:ANI

There seems to be an endless loop of reversions going on in the La Salle Extension University article, and I have raised this matter on WP:ANI, if you want to comment there. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Just an update for all those who were involved in this discussion (Giant Snowman, Baseball Bugs, Jokestess, [sorry if I left anyone out] back in late 2009.

"Justice has been served" (well, almost) because the "Virginia Health Care Executive" (who was attempting to massage the information about LaSalle Extension University to compliment his own misrepresentations about his claim he received a Ph.D. from it in 2000 even though the school never offered a Ph.D. in any subject as all you observed and closed in 1982) - has been arrested in Virginia for allegedly using false documentation to defraud a small rural hospital out of money (his salary) which is a Felony offense.

Read the the first installment of the story at

http://www.therecorderonline.com/news/2009-12-24/Top_News/Medical_center_director_arrested.html

Finally - about the 'user name' LEU Truth Squad, never changed it because it has become unnecessary to do so given this turn of events. That said, all please be assured that if the need ever arises for me/us to again enter comment in the site, the name change will be done beforehand. Just thought with all the 'dust-up'/'edit-war' between me/us and that individual and ensuing problem all of that created - that all of you might appreciate the update and knowing how it all turned out.

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia because your username, LEU Truth Squad, does not meet our username policy.

Your username is the only reason for this block. You are welcome to choose a new username (see below).

A username should not be promotional, related to a "real-world" group or organization, misleading, offensive, or disruptive. Also, usernames may not end in the word "bot" unless the account is an approved bot account.

You are encouraged to choose a new account name that meets our policy guidelines. Alternatively, if you have already made edits and you wish to keep your existing contributions under a new name, then you may request a change in username by:

1. Adding {{unblock-un|your new username here}} on your user talk page. You should be able to do this even though you are blocked, as you can usually still edit your own talk page. If not, you may wish to contact the blocking administrator by clicking on "E-mail this user" on their talk page.
2. At an administrator's discretion, you may be unblocked for 24 hours to file a request.
3. Please note that you may only request a name that is not already in use, so please check here for a listing of already taken names. The account is created upon acceptance, thus do not try to create the new account before making the request for a name change. For more information, please see Wikipedia:Changing username.

If you feel that you were blocked in error, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. -- Cirt (talk) 02:46, 17 September 2010 (UTC)