Talk:Warnborough College/Archive 1

Unaccredited

This article does a remarkable job of dancing around the fact that Warnborough "College" is unaccredited and worthless. Prospective students should do a thorough Google search of the history of this so-called "college" before investing any time or money. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.32.121.183 (talk • contribs) 05:59, March 5 2007 (UTC) Please sign your posts!.

Well how come they have ISO certifications like most UK universities, and is officially listed by the government as a 'genuine education and training provider'? Also, if they were so bad how come they are still 'in business'....this comment is sour grapes... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.135.241 (talk • contribs) 15:54, March 9 2007 (UTC)

Well how come they got all these official certifications, and listed by the UK Department of Education and Skills, been around for 34 years, and accepted for accreditation status??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.135.241 (talk • contribs) 16:14, March 10 2007 (UTC)

Does the Warnborough have a Charter to authorise the issuing of a degree?. It does not. It does have two Limited Company Registrations.Degreemill 10:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ISO Certification has nothing to do with accreditation. ISO has merely to do with documentation of practices.

Any dog trainer can get listed.

There are lots of suckers around, and Warnborough College/University's website is deliberately misleading

Not sour grapes - but a warning to innocent students who might otherwise think Warnborough is legitimate.

After "34 years" Warnborough still has no accreditations in Britain or Ireland. Can you say "scam" ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.227.3.165 (talk • contribs) 15:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The tone of the comments (e.g. "any dog trainer can get listed", et al) does not suggest any objectivity or knowledge, merely a prejudiced mindset intent on causing mischief. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.135.241 (talk • contribs) 08:21, April 11 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality and Conflict of Interest

An editor of this page (80.229.135.241 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) appears to have a conflict of interest which violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view. The IP noted above resolves to warnb0r0.plus.com, presumably a network address used by Warnborough College. This user has made constructive edits to user Warnborough (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s talk page, a self-declared agent of Warnborough College who was eventually blocked for improper edits to the Warnborough College page. In fact, I believe these two users to be the same person or at least co workers at Warnborough College.

To maintain Wikipedia's credibility and therefore usefulness, users are expected to refrain from editing pages in which they may even appear to have a conflict of interest. The scope of my complaint here is specifically on conflict of interest and I am not attempting to call into question the veracity of these users' edits--although by its very nature, a conflict of interest creates these questions of trustworthiness.

At this point, this article reads more like Warnborough College's résumé than an encyclopedic article on the college. Efforts at making this article more encyclopedic would be very welcome--especially when references are cited. --67.188.0.96 01:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion Page Behavior

User Warnborough (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (and all other users): please refrain from editing other users' comments. I have reverted your last edit because there were too many improper edits made by you for me to properly clean up. If you wish to discuss the issues here, please feel free to do so by adding your thoughts. If you persist in deleting or rearranging other people's comments, I will make a recommendation that you be indefinitely blocked, as your previous block seems not to have made an impression with you.

I want to be clear again that my objection to your behavior is not the content of your additions. Rather, it is the reckless disregard you have for Wikipedia conventions, etiquette, and especially conflict of interest. --67.188.0.96 19:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User Warnborough's unsigned comments inserted in other editors' posts at 16:35 and 16:41 March 19 2007 (UTC) also removed. — Athænara ✉ 18:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reference 4 and other references and links

From that site: "IMPORTANT: The Register does not quality assure or accredit in any way the learning provision of any registered providers. Registration does not imply quality standards and should not be used in marketing. We reserve the right to remove organisations from the Register for such use." DGG 10:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, though it is in their directory, it is not in their list of Further Education Colleges... or elsewhere on the site. The current wording is misleading and has been changed, In particular, the quote is not supported.

Reference 3, claimed to be "official" is a private directory publisher.

Reference 2 is an organization dealing with workplace standards, not education

Reference 1 is a general link to the test--I have changed it to the exact link. They do have a code, but I think this merely indicates significant no of applicants, not recognition otherwise.-- Note: Oxford & Cambridge do not have codes.

Link has been changed to specific one for the successor body. The previous link was misleading.

They do not have Irish accredition:, so the levels listed do not yet apply. The article says "Warnborough is entitled to award Third level..." but provide no documentation. I have removed their misleading description of what they do not yet do. DGG 11:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The codes listed WERE genuine, although Oxford and Cambridge Local Examinations have been merged into a new body and the codes are no longer valid. The information supplied was historically correct and was not intended to mislead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.135.241 (talk • contribs) 08:20, April 11 2007 (UTC)