User talk:Us331242

Welcome...

Hello, Us331242, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

I appreciate your efforts to improve Educational accreditation and other articles, but I have greatly modified your contributions to better conform with the way things are done at Wikipedia. Please familiarize yourself with the policies and advice included in the links above.

In the future, please mark your edits as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor".

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 and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when.

Again, welcome! Orlady (talk) 18:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Educational accreditation

Please stop making non-consensus, inappropriate edits to Educational accreditation. If you continue, you may be blocked. Before editing any more, please read the introductory pages linked above. Novaseminary (talk) 14:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?--Us331242 (talk) 14:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)The information is FACTUAL, REAL and VERIFIABLE! IT PERTAINS TO US post-secondary schools. I didn't realize that Wikipedia is a censorship and doesn't allow ALL FACTUAL, LEGAL, and VERIFIABLE information. Why are the people of the world not allowed to know that there are actually rules, set forth by our government to help the general person understand the difference between accredited and not accredited?[reply]

Your paragraph violated WP:UNDUE, among other guidelines. You will note that another editor took the point behind your paragraph and added the following sentence to the same section you edited: "Since 2001, the use of the Internet domain name extension .edu has been restricted to accredited institutions, but non-qualifying institutions can still use .edu domain names obtained before the current rules came into force." Then, I added a cite to a relevant U.S. Department of Education web page discussing this. The info is now there. Any additional discussion of an issue ancillary to U.S. accreditation (and even more ancillary to a world-wide accreditation article such as this), would significantly overstate the importance of a domain name to the greater issue of accreditation. Please remember to assume good faith. Other editors assumed good faith in your edits, and made efforts to bring your additions into compliance with Wikipedia guidelines. Novaseminary (talk) 15:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--Us331242 (talk) 17:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC) WOW!!! BLOCKING ME!!! TELLING ME I wrote 'A Paragraph that VIOLATED guidelines', isn't that a bit OVER THE TOP? I believe I'm going to report you, for censoring verifiable facts from OFFICIAL SOURCES, how's that feel (hee,hee, ha, ha)? What are you 10? Let's be adults, okay...clean sleight?[reply]

There is a bunch of nonsense, in my opinion, which has nothing to do with 'educational accreditation' specifically by the 'United States'. This would be sentences discussing wars, GI bills ,peer reviews, and so forth, in the first two paragraphs, under the US section. But I didn't delete them or touch them; I wrote my OWN paragraph! The TOPIC is "Educational Accreditation" not GI BILLS, WARS AND SOMEONE'S OPINION ON how an accreditation is approved in 2010. IF there is someone (namely the author), that believes this stuff (wars, bills,...) weighs into today's school accreditation, then it is of value to let others read the cited information and create their own conclusion. I personally believe it is nonsense for the year 2010, and I would seriously call it 'judgment'/YOUR opinion, that this is a 'consensus' or a majority understanding (where's your proof?)!

NEXT, Starting out the United States section with "schools don't need to be accredited" is POOR writing and a POOR representation of the United States! I believe that the leading statement is about the US's constitution right to freedom and NOT about what is accepted as valid accreditation by the United States. While it is accurate (but misplaced/doesn't belong here) to claim, ANYONE can RUN ANY type of business in the United States, the leading statement is a FALSE and inaccurate, to make people believe that the entity of The United States feels all degrees are equal, accredited or not.

So where's MY VIOLATION? What was originally there was inaccurate (and still is) and doesn't help people understand, today, in 2010, how to distinguish unaccredited, accredited,and national/government recognized accreditation BY the United States. As it is worded, the entire United States section is FALSE! You removed ALL of my references as well as, the documentation for people to lookup things and read the by-laws/amendments. IF you would have read anything, you would know when sites are renewed or reviewed, if they do not meet the accreditation rules they are placed on probation and investigated; thus your statement about grandfathering in schools that don't hold proper accreditation is against the by-laws. The only "grandfathered" EDUs are those that have VALID accreditation and what is grandfathered in is more than one edu, generic edus, and names other than their own legal institution name. As the by-laws state, if ANY PERSON (the people of the world) is aware of an EDU that is NOT accredited they can report them and it will be investigated. Over the last 6 years, since that came into effect many have been removed! If you are concerned about a school, you can look it up (I gave the link)! Granted EDUCAUSE is only about the internet, but 60% of the world (I have statistical data, backing this as I work in the industry) finds a school on the internet or does their research on the web for the school they want to attend. If a person goes to Educause and looks up a school, if the edu was revoked or placed on probation then this tells the person the schools accreditation is suspect. The lists which YOU are pointing to, are not 'real-time' and can take a year to be updated!