User talk:Leone-deluca

June 2010

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to University of Northern Virginia. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox.

NB: If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the articles University of Northern Virginia and University of Northern Virginia in Prague, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. --Orlady (talk) 15:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

July 2010

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to University of Northern Virginia, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Orlady (talk) 15:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The question is "If we can use wikipedia as propaganda or advertising tool?" and the answer is NO, can we agree ?

therefore in the case of The University of northern Virginia, we can simply talk about what do they have based on the references that We have. Not what they do not have and focusing on harming that University by focusing on negativity based on No references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leone-deluca (talk • contribs)

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that Wikipedia should not describe the University of Northern Virginia as unaccredited, because the university's website states that it's accredited by the "American Council of University Accreditation". Not only is there no evidence that this entity is recognized as an accreditor, but I even can't find any evidence that it exists. (The only ghits on its name are to UNVA webpages, Wikipedia, and Wikipedia mirrors.)

Sorry, no dice!!! We can't agree!!!

In case you aren't aware of it, I suggest that you take a look at Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. The university's own website is not a reliable source for information on its accreditation status. --Orlady (talk) 19:55, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is what I say;

1. We can provide information in different way , I can say "Shut up" or "please be quite" ! both deliver the same thing.

2. If you could not find evidence it dose not mean that this University is Good or Bad. Have you ever been there ? have you ever studies there? If you do not know them then you can not and you should not deliver a negative message to harm their brand. Accreditation is important and based on their SACS website they are in the process of getting SACS, and they are in the process of getting other accreditation based on their Prague campus website.

3. If the university 's own website is not a right source , then what is the reliable source, wikipedia ?!

One day wikipedia was going to be a single reliable source and now it lost its reliability because there are false information or propaganda type of information.

What do you think ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leone-deluca (talk • contribs)

As a general rule, an entity is not a reliable source of information about potentially contentious topics related to itself. If UNVA says it's accredited, Wikipedia needs to verify that by a third-party source. In this instance, we have (1) third-party sources documenting loss of its former accreditation, and (2) the SACS saying that UNVA has the status of "applicant," which is not nearly the same thing as achieving accreditation. --Orlady (talk) 22:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, we have the State Council of Higher Education for Virginia (SCHEV) saying it is "non-accredited." That's a pretty solid third-party source. --Orlady (talk) 22:58, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. Orlady (talk) 22:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on University of Northern Virginia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Orlady (talk) 22:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

1) You did not answer or comment about the three items that I wrote!! 2) This is not a war , calm down, If you do not want me to edit the page, you should stop editing too. 3) You do not need to threaten me about Blocking!! It is a shame, I hope Jimmy Wales and Michael Snow do something about such usage of wikipedia , otherwise wikipedia will be disappeared soon, you know why? because people will stop donating, you know why?! because there are false information, advertising, and propaganda and apparently nobody wants do do anything about it! One of those people who stoped donating this year was me!

4) if you plan to edit a university page, you need to learn the differences between accreditation and certification first and then edit, here are two links for you to study:

http://www.schev.edu/students/accreditation.asp (especially read the last paragraph)

http://www.schev.edu/students/certification.asp

Most of the people do not know the difference between accreditation an certification or if an institution has or dose not have an accreditation what dose it mean and ... but the general public perception is that if you don't have an American accreditation you are not a good school , which it is not true (as you read in the above webpages) THEREFORE, when you put that one institution does not have accreditation it leads to negativity and propaganda!

Leone-deluca (talk) 12:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I addressed the issues you raised, but apparently I did not make myself sufficiently clear. I'll try again:

"1. We can provide information in different way , I can say "Shut up" or "please be quite" ! both deliver the same thing."

I don't see anything there that requires a response.

"2. If you could not find evidence it dose not mean that this University is Good or Bad. Have you ever been there ? have you ever studies there? If you do not know them then you can not and you should not deliver a negative message to harm their brand. Accreditation is important and based on their SACS website they are in the process of getting SACS, and they are in the process of getting other accreditation based on their Prague campus website."

You are suggesting that the only valid source for this article is original research -- namely, studying through this university. That's directly contrary to Wikipedia policy against original research and the policy on verifiability, which calls for use of published sources -- and requires that most information be obtained from sources independent of the topic.
Further, please note that the article does not say the university is "Good or Bad." What you have repeatedly removed from the article was statements that it is unaccredited. This is reliably sourced factual information, not propaganda intended to hurt UNVA. The statements that you found on the SCHEV website (notably, this page) concerning the accreditation process do indicate that accreditation does not certify quality and that unaccredited institutions may provide good education. That information is relevant to articles such as educational accreditation and unaccredited institutions of higher learning. It does not belong in the UNVA article, and it most particularly does not justify removing the terms "unaccredited" and "non-accredited" from the UNVA article.
Regarding SACS, the article states (based on the UNVA website) that UNVA is an applicant for SACS accreditation. Be aware that applicant status is the first step in seeking accreditation. It simply means that UNVA has applied. SACS has not yet accepted UNVA as a "candidate" for accreditation.

"3. If the university 's own website is not a right source , then what is the reliable source, wikipedia ?!"

No, Wikipedia cannot cite itself. How about the state of Virginia, the accrediting agency that withdrew UNVA's accreditation, and the accreditation agency with which UNVA has applicant status? Those are the sources used in the article. All are independent of the article topic. --Orlady (talk) 15:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Block notice

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at University of Northern Virginia. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Orlady (talk) 14:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]