User talk:CollegeMeltdown

Education Dive moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Education Dive, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:08, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of International Education Corporation

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on International Education Corporation requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company, corporation or organization that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Daiyusha (talk) 02:52, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Is the Purdue Global page the best place to track Brightwood's history

Thank you for your updates to the Purdue Global page. The only one I'm not sure about is the sentence about Brightwood. This, to me, feels too unrelated to the focus of the article. Brightwood closed 3 years after it was sold by Kaplan and at a time Purdue Global didn't even exist. Would you object to keeping the reference to Graham Holdings but moving the history of Brightwood to either the Kaplan, Inc. or Brightwood pages? JA1776 (talk) 13:32, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

OK. You can do that if you like. CollegeMeltdown (talk) 19:34, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Bold, revert, discuss

The usual procedure when someone (me) deletes your contribution is to discuss things on the userpage. My deletion was bsed on WP:UNDUE weight given to a college protest per WP:NOTNEWS. Simply reverting it is not the way to go. Moreover, your username gives the impression you are here to Right Great Wrongs (to wit, liberal biases and no-platforming on college campuses). Yes, I do occasionally read CampusReform. This, however, is not what Wikipedia is for. Please discuss the matter on the talk-page and explain why this incident belongs on the Higher education page. I maintail it's given WP:UNDUE weight. Kleuske (talk) 11:48, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. ElKevbo (talk) 12:30, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

April 2019

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from College accessibility and success for Latinos in New York City into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. VQuakr (talk) 19:28, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the page will even be approved. I just wanted a space just in case someone wanted to keep the article.CollegeMeltdown (talk) 19:58, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

It isn't waiting to be approved; it is live in mainspace now. It exists in the history of the page you copied it from, and you copied it without preserving references, so I will request its deletion. VQuakr (talk) 03:53, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

That's ok with me. Thank you. CollegeMeltdown (talk) 11:36, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Issues on your edits on Bryant & Stratton College

Hello, I am sure your edits on Bryant & Stratton College happened in good faith. However, there are many issues with your edits: It is honorable that you attempt to contribute as much as possible but sometimes, less is more. The vast majority of your edits are either outdated, irrelevant or both (e.g. average salaries of students, average student loan payments, popularity of majors, (old) student numbers for individual campuses etc.). Also, you should pay attention not to excessively list information (rather prose) and not majorly simply copy information from the sources. Your edits also caused errors in the reference section. This is why I will revert your edits. For further information on my reasoning, please see the following Wikipedia policies and guidelines: WP:NOTSTATS, WP:IRRELEVANT, WP:LISTDD, WP:PROSELINE, WP:EXCESSDETAIL, WP:REF, WP:COPYPASTE, WP:UNIGUIDE, WP:NOTCATALOG, WP:DISRUPT. Thanks.2A02:1205:5013:CCA0:E0F0:1E92:AD9:CE30 (talk) 21:34, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

How is the College Scorecard information outdated, irrelevant or both?CollegeMeltdown (talk) 21:46, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

I explained it already partially in my first post to you: For example, popularity of majors is hardly relevant. That aside, Wikipedia is also not for promotional content (WP:POV). Also, as it was already pointed out to you earlier by User:ElKevbo: you should not just revert edits and engage in edit war but first discuss. I will again revert and restore my version in accordance with the Wiki policies and guidelines I stated in my previous post and in the edit summary of the article.2A02:1205:5013:CCA0:E0F0:1E92:AD9:CE30 (talk) 21:54, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Again issues on your edits on Bryant & Stratton College

Hello User:CollegeMeltdwon, Again, I have to approach you on your new edits on the article Bryant & Stratton College. There are some of the issues I addressed to you already but also new issues: You shifted information from the lead section to the history section. There is a reason this information was in the lead section in the first place. According to Wikipedia guidelines, the lead section of an article is a "summary of its most important contents". Your shift did not only impair the prose in the history section but also created repetitive information in said section. You also added a duplication source where the same source was already given. Then; again, adding old student numbers from the past is irrelevant. Third; your edit "Most of the notable alumni graduated in the late 19th and early 20th century" is also subjective, irrelevant and does not add value to the article. How you objectively came to this conclusion is also debatable on a side note. Fourth, it is unnecessary and irrelevant to add that over the long history of this school, there was a decrease in locations. This is already clear from the prose before your edits and it is unnecessary and irrelevant to emphasize this additionally. From your edits on this article so far, I also see some issues such as tendentious editing in that you appear to include and highlight trivialities with the aim to represent this school in a shady manner. Looking at your talk page, I don't seem to be the first one to spot this: As Users ElKevbo and Kleuske have already pointed out, you were also already engaged in edit war for similar issues. Be it as it may, I will again revert your edits according to the above reasoning and the following corresponding Wikipedia policies and guidelines: WP:MOSLEAD, WP:IRRELEVANT, WP:TENDENTIOUS, WP:POV, WP:UNDUE, WP:DISRUPT, WP:REF. Should these issues continue, I would have to notify the Wiki administrators. Thank you.2A02:1205:5013:CCA0:B4D3:225E:2B54:C78A (talk) 00:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Anonymous writer, you win. CollegeMeltdown (talk) 00:32, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your most recent comment. I have also noted that you consistently re-published your edits on the article's talk page. While one may express one's findings on talk pages, the talk pages are also not for spamming according to Wikipedia policies. I also noted that, in addition, you re-published your edits on the personal talk page of my former IP address'; this could be seen as harassment per Wikipedia policy. The only reason I haven't intervened on the article's talk page is because at some point the archiving bot will automatically do so. For further information on the aforementioned information, please see the following Wikipedia policies: Wikipedia:No talk page spamming, WP:TALKNO, WP:HARASS, WP:HOUNDING, WP:ARCHIVE. Thank you.2A02:1205:5013:CCA0:61F7:365F:EC26:F761 (talk) 08:11, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Is there any reason you choose to use different IP addresses? CollegeMeltdown (talk) 16:38, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello User:CollegeMeltdown, I can't see where this question is relevant to the article or our discussion. However, I feel you may want to imply or insinuate something... I don't "choose to use" different IP addresses, I simply get them because the contract with my Internet provider is such that I have a dynamic IP address. A dynamic IP address is "when a computer's IP address is assigned each time it restarts" (see: Dynamic IP). The whole discussion is getting off-topic now and it is becoming quite personal. I noticed that you again edited the article and self-reverted. I hope we can close the case. I would not want to take it further to the next level. Thanks.2A02:1205:5013:CCA0:5C42:21F7:5BBA:77F2 (talk) 17:37, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Third and final warning regarding your edits on Bryant & Stratton College

Hello User:CollegeMeltdown, Regarding your newest edits: link rot is a sad event on Wikipedia. However, it does not mean that the information the active link once supported is not accurate. In this case, the information you deleted is actively available on the archived Ohio History Central source, where it clearly states "fifty" and not forty and "most major US cities". You also deleted the school's student numbers altogether. You also added a source which is completely unrelated to the article; Bryant University and Bryant & Stratton College are not the same institutions (which is why each institution has its own Wikipedia article). Given all the evidence (your username, your user page, your edits, your entire talk page, our on-going discussions), there appear to be serious issues with disruptive editing and neutrality from your side (extreme WP:POV, WP:UNDUE). You appear to have a strong "anti-education" attitude - specifically towards private, for-profit schools. You are now also attempting to game the system by inserting "good" edits and adding a notable alumnus to cover your disruptive editing (WP:GAMING). You also consistently brach Wikipedia talk page guidelines by cross-posting our discussion on multiple boards (your talk page, the article's talk page, all my previous IP's talk pages) (WP:MULTI). You are now also becoming contradictory and dishonest: On the one hand, you state that you will stop with your disruptive edits on the article (see: [[1]]). On the other hand, you continue your disruptive edits on the article afterwards. Please note that dishonesty and lying is completely unacceptable per Wikipedia policies and guidelines (WP:DNTL, WP:DISHONEST). I also noticed that you misuse constantly, the articles talk page. You don't discuss on there but simply re-publish your edits which I reverted from the article per the Wiki policies explained before. Please also accept that Wikipedia guidelines also apply to talk pages (WP:TALK). The talk pages are also not soapboxes for propaganda (WP:NOTPROPAGANDA). I will revert your edits on the article again for the aforementioned reasons and the corresponging policies (WP:POV, WP:TENDENTIOUS, WP:UNDUE, WP:DISRUPT, WP:IRRELEVANT, WP:REF, WP:DNTL, WP:DISHONEST). This is my third and last warning, should the same issues continue, I will notify the Wikipedia administrators. Thank you.2A02:1205:5013:CCA0:B58B:874C:9022:318 (talk) 07:10, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

In my opinion, 2A02:1205:5013:CCA0:B58B:874C:9022:318, my edits were not disruptive edits. In my opinion, your work is disruptive and it whitewashes the history and current structure of Bryant and Stratton College. Perhaps the page should be semi-protected.

Over the last few days, under different IP addresses, you have removed essential information about the school, including the its current ownership (Parthenon Capital Partners),, student outcomes provided by College Scorecard, and institutional history (see my reference to professor Angulo's work).

If there is any source I will value more, at this point it is the scholarly work by scholar AJ Angulo.

As far as your latest argument for keeping Bryant & Stratton Colleges page just as it was, and deleting all of my effort, here are my points.

1. The source I provided for number of colleges was from Bryant University, which has roots with Bryant & Stratton College. Can you prove that your source was better and that Bryant University was wrong? I have been looking for another source for locations to settle the controversy, but the best I could find was from 1867, and it included (1)Memphis, (2)Concord, (3)Auburn, (4)New Orleans, (5) Bangor, (6)Quincy, (7)Philadelphia, (8)Portland, (9)Poughkeepsie, (10)Utica, (11)Cleveland, (12)Saint Paul, (13) (14)Davenport, (15) Boston, (16)Providence, (17)Hartford, (18)Bridgeport, (19)Troy, (20)Burlington, (21)Montreal, (22)Toronto, (23)Portland, (24) Buffalo, (25) Cincinnati, (26)Detroit, (27)Indianapolis, (28)Chicago, (29)Milwaukee, (30)Saint Louis, (31) Syracuse, 932) Davenport, (33)Springfield, (34)Peoria, and (35)Nashville Bryant & Stratton did have other locations, but I cannot find anywhere the number exceeded this list. A 1917 volume of College and Private School Directory of the United States and Canada, reported colleges in Chicago, New Albany, Louisville, Saint Louis, Manchester, Buffalo, Boston, Providence, and Warren, Ohio.

2. The enrollment numbers that you allow have no source. Where are the 13,000+ that you assert?

3. Rather than assessing the material, you claim I have a bias against For-profit higher education in the United States. I'm not sure whether I have a bias, but based on years of study, I do think that generally their rise in the late 20th century has damaged Higher education in the United States. If you are going to try and ruin my reputation, perhaps you should explain who you are.

4. You talk about dishonesty and lying. I did not lie. I changed my mind. I don't believe it's dishonest to change one's mind, especially after more evidence is obtained.

5. 'Propaganda" is in the eye of the beholder. To state that I am merely using propaganda is an insult. Bryant & Stratton College, on the other hand, has a history of bullying and exaggerated if not false claims. At least that's what scholar AJ Angulo and others have submitted. See page 10 of Diploma Mills: How For-Profit Colleges Stiffed Students, Taxpayers, and the American Dream.

I look forward to your responses and will try to give you adequate time before I revert edits and add information. How much time do you need? CollegeMeltdown (talk) 13:13, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello User:CollegeMeltdown, Please acknlowledge that it is also against Wikipedia policy to put me under time pressure to respond to your posts (see: WP:HARASS). Also, it is irrelevant whether I edit as an IP editor, all users (IP and username) are of the same value at Wikipedia (see: WP:WAE). I have discussed with you several times. I have explained my reasoning to you several times. I have shown you the problems with your edits and behavior according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines several times. You do not seem to comprehend. If you believe that you are right (although I explained to you how you are violating Wikipedia policies), then you are always free to approach the Wikipedia administrators. With three warnings and an explanation every time of how your edits and behavior went against Wiki policies, I will not engage in further discussion. I will simply revert the next time I see the same issues with your edits. As stated in my third warning to you, should you nonetheless continue with the same disruptive editing pattern, I will notifiy Wikipedia administrators. Thank you.2A02:1205:5013:CCA0:1957:95D9:4601:17FA (talk) 14:29, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello User: Variable IP, I did not give you a deadline, but would expect that in good faith you would answer my points in the same manner that you were able to write these arguments. In the meantime, I am requesting that the Bryant & Stratton College article and talk page be semi-protected.CollegeMeltdown (talk) 15:06, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello User:CollegeMeltdown, While some of your newest edits on the article are good, there are again issues with others. In the Wikipedia policy WP:CITENEED, the last point in the section "when not to use this tag" says: "Do not insert a "Citation needed" tag to make a point, to "pay back" another editor, or because you "don't like" a subject, a particular article, or another editor". For the aforementioned point in the given policy and all the discussions so far, I will revert your inserted "citation needed" templates at the student numbers. You also again published duplicate sources which appear twice in the reference section (e.g. the Seagram source, one Henry Ford source...). I will remove the duplicates and format properly which leads me to the next point: As other users have pointed out to you already too. PLEASE START REFERENCING PROPERLY AND NOT JUST URL DROPPING. As others have explained to you, this creates a lot of extra work and clean-up for other editors. If you simply don't know how to reference properly, I am willing to offer you a deal (for this article) and give you my hand. Provided that you stop your disruptive edits, you may "park" your suggested material on the article's talk page and I will check it against Wikipedia policies. If it is suitable policy-wise for inclusion in the article, I will include and format it properly. Would that deal be ok for you? Also, for the time being, could you please refrain from editing the article until I have sorted out the above issues? Thank you.2A02:1205:5013:CCA0:B5A4:4381:297:666 (talk) 14:28, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello User: 2A02:1205:5013:CCA0:B5A4:4381:297:666, it was my mistake on the citation for notable figures. In the future I will post information on the Bryant & Strattontalk page if I remember, especially if it needs a reference. I am still learning (WP:NOTPERFECT). I'm not sure what you mean by "disruptive" edits. Can you be more specific? For example, the enrollment numbers (13,000+) have no source and it should be noted, or the number should be eliminated. As I mentioned previously,Bryant & Stratton College has a documented history of being aggressive and using misleading claims, an important part of their institutional history, and perhaps one of the reasons why the schools declined in the later 19th century. Maybe you could find out who originally posted the number and the year it was posted, or find the new number independently. I hope that you will also agree that AJ Angulo's scholarly work is worth adding to the article. If not, what would you deem important and accurate?CollegeMeltdown (talk) 14:52, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello User:CollegeMeltdown, Hmm... You may have a point with the student numbers, not having any student numbers would be silly and the NCES is quite a solid source. If you can repost here the link where it shows on the NCES the 10'000 students, then I may include. However, regarding the vast majority of your other edits, it's a big, fat NO - Especially the "AJ Angulo" part. Too many issues per wiki policies, primarily lack of neutrality and relevance (e.g. WP:POV, WP:ADVOCACY, WP:UNDUE, WP:NOTSCANDAL, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:INDISCRIMINATE). Also, with statements of yours such as "if there is any source I will value more, at this point it is the scholarly work by scholar AJ Angulo" or "for-profit higher education in the United States... but based on years of study, I do think that generally their rise in the late 20th century has damaged Higher education in the United States"; you may have a conflict of interest with this article (see: WP:COI) - this on a side note. I will therefore revert the AJ Angulo thing (which you re-inserted without prior consensus). I will do the other edits and the proper formatting over the weekend. Please don't cause any further issues (technical or other) so that I can properly do the discussed edits. Thank you.2A02:1205:5013:CCA0:BC17:1F14:3FBF:69A5 (talk) 18:02, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello User: 2A02:1205:5013:CCA0:BC17:1F14:3FBF:69A5, I'm not sure why you put AJ Angulo in the same sentence as 'for-profit higher education in the United States'; I believe you are taking my words out of context to allege a bias. I also don't think it is a "conflict of interest" to be educated on a subject, to appreciate scholarly work, and to then include it in a Wikipedia article. This is not simply a point of view, but the qualitative analysis of a scholar (AJ Angulo) who has spent years doing historical research. If that is your standard, perhaps we should examine every adjective in this article to maintain neutrality. For example, to say that Bryant & Stratton College was "well known" might be misleading, leading the reader to believe the chain did not have significant problems. If you are interested, I suggest you examine the books in the Further Reading section of Higher education in the United States. Perhaps you can tell me someone else I should read. I'm also not sure how you define "consensus" given that only two people are engaged in the conversation, that I have revealed my experience, and you have not indicated any possible bias. Does that mean I have to agree with all of your actions and take no actions? Please elaborate. And please put your complaints about Bryant & Stratton College on the talk page of the Bryant & Stratton College article instead of here. CollegeMeltdown (talk) 19:58, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello from somebody not involved with this dispute. I thought I'd introduce you to {{reflist-talk}}, which formats a reflist within a talk section. That way the references cited in a discussion thread are kept on the page with that discussion. -- M.boli (talk) 01:55, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

References

Thanks M.boli. I'm still learning the ropes. CollegeMeltdown (talk) 01:58, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

CollegeMeltdown, my advice to you is don’t suck up to that IPv6 bully. If they ever try any of this crap again, you have several options:

1. ping me for help ({{ping|Mathglot}})
2. ignore them and don’t respond at all
3. delete their comments off your page per WP:OWNTALK
4. collapse their comments with the {{collapse top}} template
5. archive their comments
6. tell them politely that you don’t appreciate their senseless harassment, that they should take it up on the article talk page if they have a content dispute, and tell them, "Please stay off my user talk page permanently.”

By the way, as for #3 above, you’re welcome to delete all their comments now, if you wish. (The only caveat being, per WP:TPO, don’t change what they said by altering anything they wrote: either delete a comment entirely, or leave it as is.)

Don’t hesitate to contact me if you ever need assistance. Mathglot (talk) 05:15, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Just stopping by

Hello, CollegeMeltdown. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dumuzid (talk • contribs) 20:42, June 17, 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I just replied. Hope it gets through to you. CollegeMeltdown (talk) 20:58, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

hi

Just wanted to say I am glad you found out it was not real Jena (talk) 16:19, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Jena, Thank you for your concern. It wasn't real per se, but I am still concerned that the man will continue harassing me. CollegeMeltdown (talk) 17:59, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Continued Harassment by Dynamic IP

A man with a dynamic IP continues to harass me.

First, this person deleted all of my edits to the Bryant & Stratton College (BSC) article with vague accusations. Then he warned me about my edits about BSC here, on my talk page, intensifying his accusations with time.

When I received assistance from a more senior editor, ElKevbo, the harasser posed as a lawyer ""Harvey Clauston." He demanded I revert all my edits within 72 hours or give him my account information so Bryant & Stratton IT could revert the edits. "Clauston" also sent me a document that had a Bryant & Stratton College watermark which said that I would not say anything further about BSC.

After continued harassment, ElKevbo suggested I post my concerns on the Wikipedia administrative page. I posted my problem about "Clauston" and the legal threats on the Wikipedia administrative page and received lots of good advice from the Wikipedia community. The Bryant & Stratton College article became semi-protected, which made it a requirement for anyone editing the article to post from an account (not anonymously).

After I refused to meet the harasser's 72-hour deadline for reverting all the edits or for giving him my account information, the harasser posed as another person, "Steven A. Miller." In this email, he claimed to have contacted about a dozen businesses and encouraged them to contact Wikipedia Legal about me. I posted again on the Wikipedia administrative page and sent an email to Wikipedia Legal. CollegeMeltdown (talk) 12:02, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Good! Look he is just a Fake .. he can't do anything to you ... just keep reporting him and he will go away ! Jena (talk) 14:39, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Jena Fi, thanks, I will continue to report him. He is already doxxing me and sending false accusations to companies, which isn't a problem, yet. My immediate concern is that if he is an IT person, he could escalate his harassment (e.g. hacking online accounts). It's also not cool to be advising companies to engage Wikimedia Legal. I'm sure they have enough to do. CollegeMeltdown (talk) 15:26, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

The taming of Higher Education in the United States

Thanks for the encouragement you have been giving. I have tried to add some long edit summaries to explain the rationale. I hate deleting other peoples hard work- so a little thank, makes a big difference. --ClemRutter (talk) 12:16, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Clemrutter, I don't see anyone complaining. You are doing a great job. If you feel really concerned about something specific, you should run it by ElKevbo. If you park information in other articles (such as History of higher education in the United States or Student loan debt in the United States), and have prominent links to those articles, that might make you feel less guilty. Roll on!CollegeMeltdown (talk) 11:08, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Community college stigma

I think that having a subsection for that is a great idea! Spaceboy900 (talk) 09:25, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Education Dive

Hello, CollegeMeltdown. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, Draft:Education Dive.

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:55, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Receiving emails and phone calls telling me to stop writing on Wikipedia

I have been receiving repeated anonymous emails and phone calls telling me to stop writing on Wikipedia. @Mathglot: CollegeMeltdown (talk) 17:53, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Weird that somebody would blank your user page. But this is a lot more threatening. M.boli (talk) 23:23, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

In regards to your user page being blanked out

Hi, CollegeMeltdown, Tenryuu here. I was browsing the administrator's noticeboard when I saw the post concerning you. I took a look at your user page's history and saw that the user John from Idegon was the one who blanked out your page as he had concerns that you were "self promoting" per his edit summary. I have suppressed pinging him so that you may leave a message on his talk page at your own volition. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 00:11, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

He's right. You are using Wikipedia to make a point. You have not tied your account to any real person, so whose CV is that? See WP:UP for appropriate uses of your userspace. John from Idegon (talk) 00:32, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ElKevbo (talk) 21:31, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

TPUSA

I saw you found some reliable sources for the TPUSA edit. Those look good. I hope you don't mind that I moved the material up in the article so it's part of the 2020 election section. It seems like this is all related. Also, I changed some of the language to better reflect the sources. I don't think this change any of the facts presented. Thanks for taking the previous feedback about sourcing and improving it. Springee (talk) 03:39, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Looks good to me. CollegeMeltdown (talk) 13:27, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

2 inaccurate recent edits on Purdue Global

Hi, just a notification that I've posted some corrections to the Purdue University Global talk page regarding two recent edits you made there. Please take another look at the source material and revert those inaccuracies. Thanks Ewqwdqemdh (talk) 23:57, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Education Dynamics for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Education Dynamics is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Education Dynamics until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:45, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Education Dynamics is a key player in for-profit higher education in the United States. I have already noted three sources, including NBC News, The Atlantic, and The Hill. The company has revenues in the hundreds of millions of dollars and works with 500-900 colleges in the US, including some of the largest online providers.CollegeMeltdown (talk) 17:33, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I think the convention is that your response at the deletion discussion should start with a one-word answer such as oppose or keep (meaning oppose deletion or keep the article), either bold or italic. After that, you put your reasoning. I suggest you edit your paragraph accordingly. It is entirely possible that whoever posts the "soft delete" warning doesn't actually read your paragraph to divine your vote. -- M.boli (talk) 01:41, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

OK, thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by CollegeMeltdown (talk • contribs) 21:46, March 21, 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate you letting me know about this discussion but some editors might view that as canvassing. If there are few participants or an unclear consensus in a discussion about a topic related to higher education, it might be better received if you left a brief, neutral post at WT:UNI asking for additional opinions and input. ElKevbo (talk) 03:05, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

ElKevbo, thanks for the advice. CollegeMeltdown (talk) 12:04, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Is it worthwhile to contact gmx mail?

Is it worthwhile to report the harassers to GMX Mail? The anonymous harassers may be violating the terms of service, or even crossing some legal line. -- M.boli (talk) 12:36, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Would they even honor such a request? CollegeMeltdown (talk) 13:48, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't know. I think the e-mail providers have mechanisms for dealing with users who are harassing or engaging in illegal activities. -- M.boli (talk) 14:31, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Rachel Romer Carlson for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rachel Romer Carlson is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachel Romer Carlson until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Celestina007 (talk) 03:09, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Guild Education

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Guild Education, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:40, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

I've contested this nomination. ElKevbo (talk) 18:49, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Ancora Education moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Ancora Education, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. GermanKity (talk) 03:03, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Lede of For-profit higher education in the United States needs to be rewritten

I saw that you recently tweaked the lede of For-profit higher education in the United States. It needs more than a tweak: it needs a complete rewrite because it's totally out of sync with the article and includes a lot of things that aren't even mentioned in the lede. If you have time, it would be great if you could take a stab at it! ElKevbo (talk) 03:40, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. Is there someone who can help in reducing the section on for-profit colleges? That section is important but it seems overly detailed and out of proportion when you look at the big picture.--CollegeMeltdown (talk) 03:49, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Does it just need to be split out into a separate article? ElKevbo (talk) 05:04, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Possibly. One for for-profit colleges in the US and one for for-profit higher education in the US. --CollegeMeltdown (talk) 12:40, 1 July 2021 (UTC). This would also remedy my complaint that this article has disproportionately too much information on for-profit colleges. --CollegeMeltdown (talk) 21:20, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

July 2021

Hello, I'm Horse Eye's Back. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Charlie Kirk (activist), but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:21, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? --CollegeMeltdown (talk) 20:31, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Cut and paste

Hi CollegeMeltdown I noticed that this edit [2] is clearly a cut and paste from somewhere else on wikipedia yet thats not noted in the edit summary. Why not? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:26, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I probably should have done that. --CollegeMeltdown (talk) 20:33, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

July 2021

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Grand Canyon University. Thank you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:28, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

How is this information controversial? --CollegeMeltdown (talk) 20:28, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of For-profit colleges in the United States

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on For-profit colleges in the United States requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from http://brocorights.blogspot.com/2018/03/for-profit-higher-education-in-united.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 16:20, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

How ironic. It was the website in question that stole the words from a Wikipedia article titled For-profit higher education in the United States. https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=For-profit_higher_education_in_the_United_States&oldid=642374235 CollegeMeltdown (talk) 19:00, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

My sincere apologies. The Blogspot page was published in 2018, and the new article was created this morning. I checked to see if the Blogpost page was a copyvio of Wikipedia, but because the Blogpost page significantly predated the article (which had been automatically flagged as a copyvio), I tagged it for G12. Had I known that the Blogspot article was actually a copyvio of another Wikipedia article, I would not have tagged it, but I'm not aware of a way to check if a source is copying a different Wikipedia article than whatever was flagged.

I've asked the deleting admin, Materialscientist, to undelete the article (and linked him to this discussion), so hopefully your article will be restored. Pinging him is essentially moot, because he has ping notifs disabled and I already left a message on his talk page.

Once again, I apologize for the incorrect deletion of your article. Regards, Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 20:13, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Thank you for quick response--CollegeMeltdown (talk) 20:26, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@Giraffer: It looks like CollegeMeltdown is right - that website does appear to be a copy of the Wikipedia article. Please restore the article (and consider (a) apologizing to CollegeMeltdown and (b) being more careful in the future). Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 19:02, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Ancora Education

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Draft:Ancora Education, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Acacacacczc (talk) 13:40, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

@Acacacacczc:, thank you for the information. I am requesting the information that was deleted. --CollegeMeltdown (talk) 16:38, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ancora Education (August 2)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Tamingimpala was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Ancora Education and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Ancora Education, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Tame (talk) 12:50, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello, CollegeMeltdown! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Tame (talk) 12:50, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ancora Education (August 4)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Hatchens was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Ancora Education and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Ancora Education, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Hatchens (talk) 13:27, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

University of Arizona Global Campus

Hey CollegeMeltdown, can you please add a logo to the University of Arizona Global Campus page? Thanks!!

Someone would first need to upload an image to Wikimedia.--CollegeMeltdown (talk) 01:58, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ancora Education (September 7)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by TheChronium was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Ancora Education and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Ancora Education, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

TheChronium 07:05, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Move of Strada Education Network

Hello CollegeMeltdown, I noticed that you tried to move the page United Student Aid Funds to Strada Education Network a little while ago, which wound up in Wikipedia space (where it has the prefix "Wikipedia:" in front of the name). I have now fixed this and the article can be found at Strada Education Network. Pagemoves can be quite tricky if you're not used to them, so I also wanted to let you know about the Technical Requests page (WP:RMTR) where you can fill out a template and someone will complete the move for you if that is easier. Thanks, and happy editing. --Jack Frost (talk) 00:04, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Great, Jack Frost, thank you for the help.

Hello!

Hello, I saw your great work in the topic of for-profit education. Maybe you would be interested in improving this draft: Draft:Democracy Prep Public Schools? Best, Thriley (talk) 08:10, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Thriley Looks like an important article. Is there a timeframe? --CollegeMeltdown (talk) 20:55, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

None at all! Best, Thriley (talk) 01:16, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Thriley, can we talk about a strategy? My email is CollegeMeltdown@protonmail.com--CollegeMeltdown (talk) 14:34, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Higher education in the United States

Apart from your use of the word "pedigree", which may be appropriate for a book title, perhaps, but not for a Wikipedia article, I have reverted two more edits in this article. The first one because the source (about innumeracy in the legal professions) did not offer any statistics on innumeracy, the one on illiteracy because it has little to do with higher education. It is a failure of the education system, to be sure, but it's failure of basic education, instead. Kleuske (talk) 13:35, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Kleuske, instead of deleting this important section on the effects of functional illiteracy and innumeracy, why not help beef it up? These problems have a profound effect on community colleges, for-profit colleges and even other schools. Not sure what the problem is with the word "pedigree." Rich people have used the word to describe in-group and out-group characteristics. --CollegeMeltdown (talk) 23:23, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

For the reasons I already provided. Most notably, illiteracy is not a subject that belongs in an article on higher education, since it is an issue concerning basic education and pretty much precludes higher education. Moreover, I expect to find sources actually say what a contributor claims they do. WP:V is pretty important. Kleuske (talk) 11:24, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Kleuske, how can illiteracy and innumeracy not be major issues in US higher education? Millions of functionally illiterate and innumerate people have enrolled in US community colleges and for-profit colleges. And as the one law journal noted, even law school students and others with advanced degrees cannot grasp numbers well enough to solve problems. Would you help me find the sources or is your role merely to delete information? --CollegeMeltdown (talk) 19:43, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

You do know what "higher education" means, right? It includes reading a metric fuckton of books, which is impossible if you're illiterate. And yes, the one law journal did mention that, but it failed to support the claim you made in the article, citing that article as a source, so that point is moot. Kleuske (talk) 09:10, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Kleuske, What do you mean by "metric fuckton"? I'm not sure I understand your reasoning. Are you saying that functional illiteracy and innumeracy do not exist in US higher education because they shouldn't exist in higher education? I think I need assistance in understanding your thought processes.CollegeMeltdown (talk) 12:15, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Here ya go. Please elucidate on the general period in which people, according to your reasoning, learn how to read and write. IFAIK, It's not in college or university. Also, please provide sources (actual sources, not mere adornments) supporting your apparent claim that illiteracy is a problem in higher education. FYI, we have left WP:BRD and are now getting into WP:IDHT-territory. Kleuske (talk) 12:21, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Kleuske, people in the US should be learning how to read, write, and do math at lower levels, but many do not accomplish what is necessary to be functionally literate or numerate. So what you are saying is that US illiteracy and innumeracy are not related to US higher education, and that it does not affect the number or quality of matriculants or their performance in higher education, particularly at community colleges? Going by that logic, should we eliminate community colleges and for-profit colleges from this article? Is it possible that because you are a foreigner or of advanced age, or because you are in a higher social class, that you don't know what is happening and cannot understand the sources?CollegeMeltdown (talk) 12:50, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely in WP:IDHT, now. And no, people outside the US cannot possibly have any grasp on the failings of basic education, since they do not know what higher education means. After all, people outside the US do not have an education system. Do you have any clue how offensive you are? That includes your later assumptions about my age and "social class". Kleuske (talk) 12:57, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Kleuske, I am sorry you felt offended by trying to find the disconnect. I was not referring to all people outside the US or to all old people for that matter. I was referring to your social location and inability to grasp the idea that functional illiteracy and innumeracy affect the number and quality of matriculants, especially at open enrollment institutions such as community colleges and for-profit colleges. CollegeMeltdown (talk) 13:13, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

That's the kind of non-apology that isn't worth the bandwidth needed to transmit is. That you were specifically insulting me, does not make it any better. I understand perfectly, and I have pointed out numerous times, by now, that it does not belong in that article, since the problem is elsewhere. Also, I have reverted you latest edits, since, once more, you misrepresented your source. Kleuske (talk) 13:19, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Kleuske, I know it would be unwise to continue this debate, so you should have the last word. I am trying to understand your position and am sorry you felt offended. I do understand that the need for remedial assistance and functional illiteracy/innumeracy are not the same thing, but they are closely related. I also know that the sources were not the best and do not connect the dots as closely as you would like--that's why I asked you for assistance. Besides functional illiteracy and innumeracy, critical thinking is another concern of mine and know it's not always apparent--even in people with advanced degrees from elite universities.CollegeMeltdown (talk) 13:42, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

The appropriate phrasing would be something like "I am sorry I have offended you." If you're sorry "i felt offended" you shift the blame to me, which is an extra insult. Your sources are not at fault, you were are at fault by misrepresenting them. If you like critical thinking, please employ those skills wrt yourself and your edits. Kleuske (talk) 13:51, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Vistria Group (December 8)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Slywriter were:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Vistria Group and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Vistria Group, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Slywriter (talk) 15:18, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Bryan Alexander (futurist)

Hello, CollegeMeltdown. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Bryan Alexander (futurist), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 21:02, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Bryan Alexander (futurist)

Hello, CollegeMeltdown. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Bryan Alexander".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:17, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Ancora Education

Hello, CollegeMeltdown. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Ancora Education, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 16:01, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Vistria Group

Hello, CollegeMeltdown. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Vistria Group, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 16:01, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 18

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bay State College, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Harrison College.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Vistria Group (May 18)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by RPSkokie were: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Vistria Group and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Vistria Group, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

RPSkokie (talk) 17:39, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Fardad Fateri for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Fardad Fateri is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fardad Fateri until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Jeepday (talk) 17:36, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 3

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited For-profit higher education in the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 2U.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Vistria Group

Hello, CollegeMeltdown. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Vistria Group".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Online program manager, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 2U.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. M.Bitton (talk) 21:54, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Administrators noticeboard notice.

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Specific section: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Legal threat over Bryant & Stratton College -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:30, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

libs vs conserve

It's very very troublesome that you can actually tell when a post or blub or whatever these things are you can 100% tell liberal Democrats wrote these blurbs. It's beyond my thinking that people look up FACTS thinking this is gonna be right. I'm deleting my Wikipedia and going to tell anyone on all my social media pages how you let democrats say anything and/or how you keep democrats rhetoric but delete conservatives content. 2600:8800:A710:0:35D9:AE74:7413:B41F (talk) 05:53, 1 September 2024 (UTC)