User talk:Leuko

When editing this page:

• Please put comments on new topics in a separate section.
• Please put newer comments at the bottom of the page/section.
• Please sign your name with "~~~~".
• Please indent replies to already-posted text with ":".
• I will reply to your comments on this page unless you ask otherwise.

---

Verifiability, WP:UNDUE, and CMU

Please be careful to maintain balance in your edits and to ensure that any controversial statements you make are fully verifiable by reliable sources. A neutral observer likely would see undue emphasis on negative information in the CMU article, as you edited it. The term "diploma mill" gets extreme reactions from the entities thus labeled, so Wikipedia needs to be very sure that when we say an entity has been labeled this way, we have a very solid basis for that allegation. Also, although the murder of a student (apparently off-campus) is a serious event, it's not generally the sort of thing that belongs in a short encyclopedia article about a university-level -- unless there is some documented indication that it has large and long-term significance with respect to the school. Regarding verifiability, please note that lack of evidence for something does not prove is non-existence. Specifically, absence of documentation that CMU has government approval or accreditation is not verification that it lacks approval or accreditation. Additionally, please be sure that the sources you cite are reliable. Web pages like this one, which is created to promote a commercial business and appears to be derived from Wikipedia content, are not reliable sources for encyclopedic content. --Orlady (talk) 14:52, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but all of the information on this "school" comes to the same conclusion - that it is an unaccredited diploma mill which is not acceptable for licensure in numerous states. The only dissenting opinion comes from the school's administration - hardly neutral or verifiable. Per WP:UNDUE, the majority viewpoint was presented. We had the same discussion regarding St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine, and came to the conclusion that just because there isn't any positive WP:RS coverage, doesn't mean that negative coverage has to be suppressed to meet WP:NPOV. As far as the murder, this institution is hardly a university. The school cites an average class size of 16l so there are maybe 40-50 students on the island at the school. In addition, the cited article notes that the murder occurred in a dorm room, so given the proximity to such a small campus community, it seemed significant. As far as WP:RS, that list looks like it was derived from Oregon's list, which is reliable. Finally, as far as accreditation - there are only a handful of accrediting agencies - such as CAAM-HP, and if they are not listed as accredited (as other schools are), that is evidence that the school is not accredited. Leuko ^Talk/_Contribs 04:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I've worked on many articles about unaccredited and/or allegedly fraudulent educational institutions, and I have plenty of scars to show for the experience. The deal is that Wikipedia cannot publish potentially controversial or defamatory information without verification through reliable sources. We can't say that a school is unaccredited or unapproved unless a reliable source has affirmatively stated that it lacks accreditation or approval -- saying that it's not on the lists of accredited/approved institutions does not provide verifiable evidence that it isn't accredited. We can't say it's been called a "diploma mill" or a "scam" or a "substandard institution," or given some other negative label unless we can say who called it that and cite a reliable source. If the Oregon ODA list identified it as "unaccredited" or "diploma mill," Wikipedia can say that and cite the ODA, but Wikipedia can't cite somebody's website that probably was scraped off Wikipedia and might have been based on Oregon ODA at one time. And to avoid issues of WP:UNDUE, potentially peripheral negative events (such as the murder of a student, allegedly by another student) should not be the main focus of an article -- particularly when the event is fresh news and the facts may still be in question. If a reliable source documents that someone has made allegations against the school in connection with this murder (for example, that the school's negligence was a contributor), then it would start to belong in the article. --Orlady (talk) 12:23, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Avalon University School of Medicine

Hi Leuko,

I hope you are doing great. I have a small question about Avalon University page on wikipedia. Can you please explain me that why you modified the information as this school is unaccredited? As far as I know this school has all the required accreditation. Need you guidance and help to keep this page error less and authentic.

Regards, Asfateh (talk) 01:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The school is recognized by the local government (as evidenced by the IMED listing), but it is not accredited. Accreditation is done by an outside review organization, such as CAAM-HP or ACCM - this school is accredited by no one, hence "unaccredited." Leuko ^Talk/_Contribs 02:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Re: Windsor University School of Medicine edits

A few of your edits were inaccurate so I reverted them. Windsor is a WHO and IMED listed school (the statement about no accreditation is inaccurate.) The student loan scandal section was removed due to lack of relevance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SGMD1 (talk • contribs) 02:21, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

As above, recognition by the local government and accreditation by an appropriate medical school accreditation agency are two different things. And I beg to differ, the student loan scandal is very relevant. Leuko ^Talk/_Contribs 02:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Your editing of the Windsor University page is inaccurate. Please cease from editing the Windsor University page with inaccurate information.

Everything is cited. Please cease with empty threats. Leuko ^Talk/_Contribs 02:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The citation for the student loan scandal section is not relevant to the information contained in the section. In addition, it is the only subsection you have created for this page; you have deleted other relevant sections related to curriculum, tuition, and student life. The cited article for the student loan scandal section contains hearsay from a former student and lack of proof for the claims. Once again, your revisions are biased and inaccurate. Please refrain from editing the page in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SGMD1 (talk • contribs) 02:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

It is cited from a WP:RS, the standard on WP. Please review WP policies. The other sections are non-encyclopedic - they are only advertising material. Please refrain from editing an article where you have an obvious conflict of interest. Thanks. Leuko ^Talk/_Contribs 02:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The Curriculum, Tuition, and Student Life sections are not advertising material; these sections are found on WP articles for a plethora of educational institutions. Furthermore, Windsor University School of Medicine is accredited by the Government of Saint Kitts and Nevis, and your removal of this content and claim that the school is unaccredited is vandalism. Please refrain from editing an article for which you don't have adequate knowledge. Thanks. SGMD1 (talk) 03:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

3RR

Wikipedia has a hard and fast rule, called WP:3RR. It says that you can't undo the actions of another editor on the same article more than 3 times per day--more than that, and you will be blocked. I see that you've already on Windsor University School of Medicine reverted 4 times today, so technically you've broken the rule, but since you may not have been aware of it, I won't block you. However, if you revert on that article again I will. What you need to do is go to the article's talk page and discuss the issue with the other user. If you can't come to a consensus, then we have processes called dispute resolution which you can take advantage of. And just so you don't get upset, I've already given the same warning and instructions to SMGD1. Finally, note that I have declined your vandalism case against SMGD1--neither of you are vandalizing, you're simply disagreeing about article content. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I just left you a message on your talk page. I am aware of 3RR, and this type of situation has been viewed as vandalism by multiple other admins, so that's why I felt 3RR did not apply. We can continue the conversation on your talk page. Leuko ^Talk/_Contribs 04:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree. LEUKO not only violates 3RR policy but violates the verifiable source of information rule on several schools pages(Windsor, CMU, Avalon, UMHS) about the lack of accreditation. This vandalizm should be stopped immidiatelly by administrators!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.38.192 (talk) 05:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Please stop vandalizm

Your recent updates of the articles in Wikipedia clearly violate the neutral point of view therefore please stop it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.38.192 (talk) 05:31, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

How so? WP:NPOV doesn't state that all verified negative information should be removed at the request of school administrators/students/and others with a conflict of interest.