User talk:Shocka5

University of the Nations

Welcome to wikipedia. Just so you know the link you added is simply a redirect page for the UofN page, meaning the page links to itself. That is why JzG removed it. Arbusto 11:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Second warning about modifying accreditation enteries

Please stop removing notes on accreditation. Please stop removing content from Wikipedia; it is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Arbusto 03:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the edit summary you said you were "moving" accreditation info, when in fact you deleted it.[1] You did this at least two other schools as well. This is vandalism. Arbusto 03:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Every entry I've edited still has the accreditation info intact. However, the primacy and redundancy has been removed, as it should be. --Shocka5 03:22, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shocka, this is removal, pure and simple. Cut it out. JoshuaZ 03:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You two are editing inappropriately. I defy either of you to find an example of a university or college entry that contains primary and redundant accreditation information; an entry that you two haven't edited. You can't because you two are going against the norm. According to other entries and common sense, this information doesn't need to be in the entry twice and it doesn't need to be in the first paragraph. So, you two cut it out; or show me examples of you being right. --Shocka5 03:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accreditation information is imporant and therefore minimal status info should be in the initial summary. As for examples, how about all three articles that you've modified? JoshuaZ 03:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"I defy either of you to find an example of a university or college entry that contains primary and redundant accreditation information." Accredited universities, say Harvard or state universities, it goes without saying their accredited status so there is little need to explain it. The only times it is important to put in the led paragraph is when the school is a suspect "school." Such as the Pacific University edit you made, which the "Dr." who runs it got this "doctorate" there and sells "doctorates" in a lump sum to others. Arbusto 04:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you two think is the most important thing, but it simply isn't the consensus. When there is a section on accreditation, its accreditation shouldn't be mentioned twice. I'm not saying it should be removed from the entry, but Wikipedia has a policy against redundancy. --Shocka5 05:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So far, you are the only editor who seems to disagree with this consensus. JoshuaZ 05:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The intro lists the lack of accreditation and later it goes into specifics, which differ from school to school. Arbusto 06:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty easy to get consensus when JzG bans people who disagree with you. See below. So far, it looks like there are 3 for and 3 against, though. --TeachersRule 20:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Above user blocked by User:Fred Bauder as a proven sockpuppet of User:Jason Gastrich. CheckUser also confirms that Shocka5 is a Gastrich sock. Just zis Guy you know? 22:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New user or new account?

Are you a new user or is this a new user account? I ask because you seem well-versed in wikipedia policy and have not made a single "rookie" mistake. Also you have only been involved with editting unaccredited Christian schools. Are you or have you ever been connected with any of the schools you have made wiki-edits in relation to? Arbusto 06:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For example, your tenth edit was the vandalism1 warning on my talk. Arbusto 07:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need to answer your questions. I simply do not like you. I know you and your type. You like to shit on anyone and anything that you don't like, despite its value and despite the consequences of your actions. I'm removing the sockpuppet thing from my user page. Don't put it back. --Shocka5 08:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jason Gastrich. Arbusto 18:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see a check user was done, which confirmed the identity of this user was Jason Gastrich. So Jason Gatrich the "apology" you posted on my talk is now PROVED not genuine. Arbusto 18:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accreditation 2

Hi Shocka5, I had a look at the above discussion and completely agree with you. Accreditation should not be stated in the first line of a university entry paragraph, especially if there is a section on accreditation within the article- otherwise it is redundancy. Additionally, every accredited (and unaccredited) university should have the same treatment, and they clearly do not. We need universality from Yale to the University of Singapore the U of N. Arbusto and JzG and others who are doing this clearly have an agenda, and care only about redundantly sharing information. They have not added any new and relevant information to the U of N website other than accreditation info. I will continue to correct the problem on the U of N website (which I created last year). I hope you and others will also continue to fight this vandalism. Thanks and keep up the good work 82.33.116.35 04:05, 18 March 2006 (EST)

Keep up the good work. I agree with you. It's pretty easy for the mod squad to claim consensus when JzG bans people who disagree with them. They're all delusional. --TeachersRule 20:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charming. A total of two edits, both to this page. Hello socky. JoshuaZ 21:00, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! Funny how it's always long-standing Wikipedians who have an agenda, and the new and anonymous editors whitewashing unaccredited schools who are Fair and Balanced^TM. Damn those rouge admins! Anyway, I've blocked this account as an apparent sock. Just zis Guy you know? 11:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy against sockpuppetry. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. Note to sysops: Unblocking yourself should almost never be done. If you disagree with the block, contact another administrator.. Just zis Guy you know? 12:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]