User talk:Stretch call

Welcome!

Hello, Stretch call, 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:

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! Lame Name (talk) 13:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Deletion

The article has been neutralized and made encyclopedic. An effort to remove all blatant opinions has been addressed. All individual non-notable names have been removed. What remains in the article is verifiable. The article now is similar to other universities on Wikipedia, such as the Union Institute and University and in a smaller version, the Open University UK. A considerable amount of work has been invested in this article, and we do not want to lose it. This article was initiated because of the other articles written on Wikipedia that related to open universities. Our learners use Wikipedia often, and Intercultural Open University uses the Wikipedia link on our library and student support network. Please work with us to keep this article on Wikipedia. Thank you for your help.Stretch call (talk) 00:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Intercultural Open University

A tag has been placed on Intercultural Open University, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{hangon}} on the top of Intercultural Open University and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from independent reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Lame Name (talk) 19:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Referenced material

Please do not remove referenced material from Wikipedia articles. If there is a counter point of view please supply suitable third party verifiable references to support the claim. Lame Name (talk) 14:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Referenced material outdated

The referenced material noted is outdated and not true. To realize this go to ^[1]. The faculty has changed entirely from when that article was written. The two accrediting agencies mentioned in the Baer article (2003) are not a part of IOU and have not been for many years. We believe in getting the truth out, not old invalid information. On the website you will see highly credentialed professors in the field of distant education. We have worked hard to make IOU transparent. If this kind of outdated and invalid information is kept, then we wish to delete the entire article from Wikipedia.

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.. I repeat - please supply verifiable sources to support your claims. Lame Name (talk) 15:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

February 2009

The recent edit you made to the page Intercultural Open University constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to make unconstructive edits to pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. e0steven(☎Talk|✍Contrib) 15:31, 28 February 2009 (UT

university

please do not edit war over the article--leave it alone until I can get to it this evening. DGG (talk) 17:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Dear User:Stretch call, although that Intercultural Open University may be your university, it is not your encyclopedia. Stop vandalizing the articles or you'll get banned from Wikipedia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Biased Editing

Dear [user Tgeorgescu|Tgeorgescu] I am just one of the editors of the IOU Foundation article. In removing your postings I was just protecting what I considered biased editing. The article wound-up lacking a neutral position. The 2007 Skeptis article was placed without a date and you did the selected quoting that exhibited a negative bias. The same was true to the 2008 Dutch newspaper article. There is no need to make a reference link to Jesus. I did not understand what this questionable article contributed? If you looked at the IOU website you could easily see that we have fully credentialed faculty with full CV's from major universities in Europe and the USA. All of us at IOU Foundation are quite aware that we do not have Dutch Ministry approval. We are a graduate mentoring educational foundation and do not have a curriculum for the ministry to evaluate. We have no objections to this listing other than the manner in which you have posted it. This posting like all your postings are quite biased. This is obvious to anyone that would read the article. Wikipedia does have a policy on a neutral theme for article and also a criteria for validity. I have kept all your references but I have made some editing changes to express a more neutral tone. If we cannot resolve these issues I will request the help of a Wikipedia adminstrator.Stretch call (talk) 01:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you are working for the IOU or any associated organisation, it may help to read WP:COI as there may be a conflict of interest.Autarch (talk) 22:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read WP:COI and do you see how it could be relevant?Autarch (talk) 13:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

^ [1],

[1] [1],

[1]