User talk:Jfeise/Archive 1

Archive 1

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being 'minor'. The only thing that's changed is that you will no longer have them marked as minor by default.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you are familiar with the contents of WP:MINOR, and believe that it is still beneficial to the encyclopedia to have all your edits marked as such by default, then this discussion will give you the details you need to continue with this functionality indefinitely. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 22:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

		The Modest Barnstar
		Thanks for your recent contributions! -Mike Restivo (talk) 19:38, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Your last edit on University of Northern Virginia

I think that it quite unfair that you are removing all the changes that I have inserted based upon one or two bad citations. I have added information found on the government website, ICE.gov, and also announced and uploaded letters from the University of Northern Virginia, but you have cancelled all those changes. The uploaded documentation from the university's website is where other news reporter find their claims... they just happen to work for a place where they can cite themselves. Anyway, legit news does not depend only on the source - the media is like an ocean, it can sway news any way it wants... for these reasons, why not go straight to the source to find the truth? That's what I did, and I found my truth. I located the truth from the source, UNVA, but you decided that it was false and not a good citation... SMH WikkiAcctUsr24 (talk) 23:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)WikkiAcctUsr24

First, please add your message to the bottom. Second, you wrote what the UNVA chanellor will do in the future. Unless you are affiliated with UNVA, you can't know that. You also claimed that some information that a member of the Indian government has is wrong, without providing any evidence. And I can go on and on. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for your organization. It is an encyclopedia. You need to provide sources for your claims. jfeise (talk) 23:10, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Your statement read as "UNVA was raided and closed by US...." It is not closed. Also, please site reference that the school has office in Centreville, VA. For sure I know that It does not have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.3.39.173 (talk) 01:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

http://web.archive.org/web/20090607104549/http://www.unva.edu/locations.htm And even if UNVA wasn't forcefully shut down, they will soon be closing, since their only source of income just got stopped. They are virtually unknown in the US, as the UNVA owner admitted, as quoted in the "Chronicle" article from March. And their overseas operations are coming under pressure as well, due to the ICE raid. So, for all practical purposes, UNVA is gone or will be gone soon. jfeise (talk) 02:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Just because you feel that it is going to close down, you can not write as it is already closed down. Also, the chronicle statement that you have put in totally false and you don't need to put every false statement u find on internet in wiki just because someone said it. I can give you 100 more links which say utterly false thing. Are you gonna put in all of them? I know for fact that the classes happen there, I have seen them live with over 25 students attending classes, at many instances. One needs to think before entering a false statement to such an extent in Wiki. If you can translate this, http://metroslive.com/tv9-usa-inside-story-university-of-northern-virginia-scam/ there people ( a famous news channel) said 100 more false things without any verification, are you gonna put all those in wiki? Please use your conscience and the statements with valid evidences rather than just statements said by someone while entering in wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.51.143.240 (talk) 21:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

If the statement from the "Chronicle" article is false, take it up with them. Neither you nor I can make claims about it's truthfulness. Here, we are just reporting it, paraphrasing the "Chronicle" article. You are not speaking for UNVA, nor for all of it's students, hence you can not make a claim that the statement is wrong. Until the "Chronicle" retracts that information, it is valid for this Wikipedia article. As far as UNVA closing, that's at this point not in the article anymore. jfeise (talk) 21:25, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Also your locations link is an archive and not current, Currently Centreville is not mentioned anywhere on UNVA website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.51.143.240 (talk) 21:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The UNVA website was down after the ICE raid. The only version that was available at that time was the archived version in the Internet Archive, which listed Centreville as a UNVA location. jfeise (talk) 21:25, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

See http://web.archive.org/web/20090607104549/http://www.unva.edu/locations.htm which shows that even though UNVA's website currently doesn't show a location in Centreville, they had a location there at the time the website was archived by the Internet Archive.jfeise (talk) 21:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

PCC

Hi Jfeise,

Re: the PCC page...Information concerning candidate status is relevant to PCC because the reader needs to know that there is a difference between Unaccredited and Candidate status. I've posted 2 articles that Candidate status carries certain benefits of accreditation such as federal funding and credit transfer. The article as written, in my opinion, gives the reader the impression that that Candidate status is the same or equals unaccredited status, without being a candidate. I'm willing to compromise on wording and placement so I have moved it down to the section on accreditation further down in article. Take care. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.174.148.159 (talk) 23:59, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

By the way, here is some information that you may not be aware of. This is easily verifiable by reading the USDE or any regional or national accredidation agency. There are at least 3 separate and distinct categories that an institution may fall in: unaccredited status, candidate status, and accredited status. Unaccredited does not equal candidate, and candidate does not equal accredited. It's not like being a candidate for a job. Candidate is a specific category recognized by the USDE. Some of the ways candidate differ from unaccredited is funding, credit transfer, and the institution no longer showing up on unaccredited lists. The article, especially the first paragraph, leaves the reader the impression there are only 2 categories, accredited and unaccredited. To put it in laymans terms, Candidate status is basically "semi" accredited status. While it's not gauranteed the institution would become accredited, the institution is granted candidate status based on steps that the accrediting agency believes will lead to accredidation. The bottom line is that Candidate schools are recognized by the USDE and unaccredited schools are not. If you can capture this better than I, then by all means please do so. In my opinion, to make the article even more accurate, it would simply list that PCC is in Candidate for Accredidation status and then let the reader determine from the Accredidation article what that meant. Take care and Happy Thanksgiving. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.174.148.159 (talk) 02:23, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Please add comments at the bottom of the page. Also, please sign your comments. Please find my answer on the talk page of your IP address. You may also want to consider to register for Wikipedia. jfeise (talk) 06:47, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Your input is needed on the SOPA initiative

Hi Jfeise,

You are receiving this message either because you expressed an opinion about the proposed SOPA blackout before full blackout and soft blackout were adequately differentiated, or because you expressed general support without specifying a preference. Please ensure that your voice is heard by clarifying your position accordingly.

Thank you.

Message delivered as per request on ANI. -- The Helpful Bot 16:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Herguan University

Bad user (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)edits on Herguan University are completely ludacris and not sourced. Please follow the rules of Wikipedia.Edgar Valdezzz (talk) 08:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Contrary to the claim, the information is sourced. My suspicion is that Ed Valdez is affiliated with Herguan University and tasked to remove information that is may look negative to Herguan's reputation. Running a diploma mill is a lucrative business, after all, and information about the fact that the institution is a diploma mill can negatively impact the business. The information on the Herguan website is sourced. The Chronicle of Higher Education is a major source for this article. If that information from the Chronicle is not correct, please have the Chronicle correct it. This page then can reflect that. Until then, the Wikipedia page on Herguan should provide the information as sourced from the Chronicle article. jfeise (talk) 09:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

There may be some justification for some of what you say. However, you need to be careful that you do not use sources to support statements which go beyond what the sources say. For example, the fact that the Chronicle of Higher Education states that four current or former Herguan employees say that Herguan sells grades is not the same thing as the Chronicle stating that Herguan sells grades. By all means report what the source says, but be careful to make sure that what you report does not go beyond what the source says. Likewise, http://www.osac.state.or.us/oda/unaccredited.aspx includes Herguan University in a list headed "Schools that are not Authorized to Offer Degrees in the State of Oregon". This justifies content that you have repeatedly removed, namely "The Oregon Office of Degree Authorization states that Herguan University is not authorized to offer degrees in the state of Oregon", but it does not justify your repeated adition of "he Oregon Office of Degree Authorization lists Herguan University as an unapproved organization". JamesBWatson (talk) 12:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I have no agenda here, more than just looking for the facts and trying to fix inaccurate information. Please do not vandalize the page and please refrain from carrying out your own "agenda" as it appears you edit positive information for another school and only negative false information for this school. More editors should take notice of this page is all I am asking for. Thank you.Edgar Valdezzz (talk) 18:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Huh? I apply facts. Herguan doesn't have any positive facts. It is you who clearly has an agenda here. Please stop vandalizing. jfeise (talk) 18:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

February 2012

Your recent editing history at International Technological University shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Wikipelli ^Talk 18:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

My Last Edit on International Technological University

Hi Jfeise,

I'd like to settle this dispute and why you think the information posted is advertising or promotional. I believe that describing the structure of our academics is informational, however you believe it to be promotional. How is the information we post different from how other universities describe their programs? Ituhubert (talk) 18:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

You are doing much more than just "describing the programs." You are posting unsourced claims and removed sourced information. You are obviously also posting as representative of ITU, which is against Wikipedia policy. jfeise (talk) 18:33, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm operating under disclosed coi, that is not against Wikipedia's policy. In the academic section, it simple states our departments and the number of masters and doctoral degrees we have. This is not different from what other universities have done. Also, the campus information. It's just about the city and size of our campus building? I've seen other universities that state much more regarding their campus and facilities, however, they're not flagged as advertising. Therefore, could you please be specific about how that information violates wikipedia policies? Ituhubert (talk) 05:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

There have been multiple changes by people who act on behalf of ITU, including an ITU2012 account. And you yourself refer to your changes with "we", and "our changes", indicating that you are not posting as person, but as representative of ITU. That is against Wikipedia policy. The multiple ITU people posting looks like sockpuppetry. Further, you are misrepresenting the SJMN article about transfer acceptability. Then, information about the city of San Jose belongs on a San Jose city page. ITU occupies a building in San Jose, and you talking about the city is the tail wagging the dog. And finally, copying parts of the ITU website on this article, what you and the people with the other ITU-related handles that I assume to be your co-workers have done, is copyright violation. jfeise (talk) 06:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and please post discussions about the page on the Talk page of the actual page, not on my talk page. That way other people who don't monitor my talk page can chime in. Thank you. jfeise (talk) 06:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Jfeise, would it be ok to copy this conversation onto the article's Talk page so that there is pre-existing context given to this discussion? Ituhubert (talk) 21:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Please do not copy my comments onto another page. You could reference this discussion thread. jfeise (talk) 03:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jfeise,

I don't know what happened, but the change that I saved was actually not intended. Your source was correct. I made a better revision including the information about the termination.

I just wanted to let you know about that. I'm going to make an update that is cleaner. The "Accreditation" section belongs at the top as it should not be the focus of this article or any university's entry on Wikipedia.

-Hubert — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ituhubert (talk • contribs) 20:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that it quite unfair that you are removing all the changes that I have inserted based upon one or two bad citations. I have added information found on the government website, ICE.gov, and also announced and uploaded letters from the University of Northern Virginia, but you have cancelled all those changes. The uploaded documentation from the university's website is where other news reporter find their claims... they just happen to work for a place where they can cite themselves. Anyway, legit news does not depend only on the source - the media is like an ocean, it can sway news any way it wants... for these reasons, why not go straight to the source to find the truth? That's what I did, and I found my truth. I located the truth from the source, UNVA, but you decided that it was false and not a good citation... SMH WikkiAcctUsr24 (talk) 23:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)WikkiAcctUsr24

DRN Notice

Hello Jfeise, I have posted a request for dispute resolution regarding your actions to continually censor factually referenced posted information, such as the "Founder's Background" of ITU as well as the "Faculty" and their backgrounds, which are not entirely referenced in the ITU website, and I have found on various website on the internet. The following URL: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Censoring_factual_postings is where I have posted the dispute of your censorship of referenced factual materials. Please take a look and I hope you will educate yourself on proper protocols for community postings. Thank you. Orientalsoul (talk) 16:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

March 2013

ITU is now accredited by WASC, so you can stop being such a hater Mr FF.

1. Please post at the bottom in a new section. 2. Please sign your posts. 3. ITU continues to be only a candidate for accreditation, as per the WASC website. jfeise (talk) 16:14, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Jfeise - YOU ARE WRONG AGAIN! http://directory.wascsenior.org/international-technological-university#zoom=15&lat=38.02891&lon=-121.30974&layers=TF0BT Get your facts straight! You are compromised in both fairness and objectivity. Do more research before you go on Wiki to post. Ignorant posting like yours destroys good reputations, and also the credibility of Wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.204.229.208 (talk) 23:06, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Is that you, OrientalSoul? You were banned from Wikipedia... In any case, on March 7, 2013, when I added my statement, the WASC website showed ITU as candidate for accreditation. And I suggest you stop the personal attacks. I will delete any further attacks from you on my talk page. jfeise (talk) 23:11, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

The WASC entry for ITU actually shows very clearly that the entry was updated on 3/11/2013: "Statement Last Revised: 03/11/2013". So, OrientalSoul, next time, please follow your own advice and do your research properly. Thank you. jfeise (talk) 23:13, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Still a hater Jfeise, aren't you? can't stand that you were wrong to torpedo the school and characterize it as a diploma mill. Now it is accredited by WASC, who accredits Berkeley and Stanford, just in case you are ignorance of that fact. And now, you can't do anything about that, can you? For your hating information, I have not posted a single thing on Wiki, and have not had to. I just want to watch as your little cross burning turns public, in the light of day, to reveal how biased your postings can be, and how absurdly abusive your intentions are to good institutions that contribute to community, while all you can do is detract. You hide your real identity, while you accuse others of doing so, and post with ignorance to mislead and confound. ITU is now accredited. Swallow it! Whatever else you do, you can only make yourself look more ignorant and for no other purpose than for being an ignorant hater. Go get a life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.204.229.209 (talk) 19:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The other thing is that it takes ANY institution a normal route of 5-7 years to gain accreditation. That means that any institution on the way there, and has not yet reached it, means they have to swallow the sorts of inflammatory postings you have put out from the beginning. In your ignorance of the process, you do not even know what it means to be a WASC "Candidate" school nor the difference between that and I.A. do you? But you post as if you are some kind of expert. YOU ARE NOT AN ACCREDITATION EXPERT! Your postings are clearly constructed through your own ignorance, and you should stop until you have done some research and study. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.204.229.209 (talk) 20:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The only hater here is you, OrientalSoul. You have been banned from Wikipedia. If you don't stop attacking me, I may need to get your IP banned. ANd you still haven't learned to sign your posts. jfeise (talk) 20:06, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Edits and discussions unproductive and disruptive editing Jfeise. Thank you. —Ituhubert (talk) 22:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

New epithet?

Is Sioux Falls, South Dakota, now going to be known as "northernmost Virginia"? --Orlady (talk) 00:42, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

LOL. Alas, they removed all references to the Sioux Falls location from their website. Seems somebody jumped the gun. Or they didn't pay the bill for the office. Looks like Sioux Falls isn't going to secede from SD to join Virginia after all ;) The building they had listed (5000 S. Broadband Lane) is a normal office building, having a couple of insurance offices and the like, according to Google Maps. There are a few universities nearby, e.g., Globe University and National American University. jfeise (talk) 20:12, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Jfeise

Hi Jfeise,

Hope you are doing good. I have seen that you contributed a lot in Wikipedia and hope that you will be able to help me further.

I've recently started posting to Wikipedia and i am new to this. Earlier today i posted some content (H-1B visa ‎ (Reverted to revision 645944886 by 206.80.4.190 (talk): Rv more link spam. (TW)) (current)) which was removed for a Reason RV more link Spam.

Can you Please suggest, how do i make a post which would be applicable. Please see, if the below post works?

• See in depth 7 years of H1b report (2008 - 2014) based on Year, States, h1b sponsors, job titles etc.

if above post is not suitable, please let me know how can i re-phrase it. Were you referring that there were lots of Links? Please advice.

Thank you once again,

Sing

74644p (talk) 03:46, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

That site is essentially an advertising site where companies can post particular kinds of jobs (IT consulting jobs.) Since that site only concentrates on a small segment of jobs suitable for the H-1B, the data is likely biased and incomplete. The site even says (in their disclaimer): "Contents found on our website are collected from respective Departments, Organizations, Businesses, Individuals or related third party/parties resources and we assume no responsibility toward it. Nor do we assume any liability for the authenticity of it."

And finally, Wikipedia is not for advertising WP:NOTADVERTISING. jfeise (talk) 04:13, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

---

Hi Jfeise,

I understand your concern, but this site will never ask for payment any place. All services are free of cost. This site is created like a meeting place for consultants , job seekers and employers seeking H1b. Yes this site concentrates only to H1b, that is why we wanted to link it up to Wikipedia.

• Please let us know how this is biased or in complete. This has 7 Years up to date database of H1b applicants that employers filed. THERE IS NO other website that provides 7 years H1B data for FREE. I bet there is none.
• Secondly, this site doesn't ask for fee or subscription, it's free. I did a quick sample study, and found that more than 50 % of links that are present in this page point to Commercial Businesses.

Any way, let's go to positive aspect of it rather negative.

Can you suggest, how to re-phrase so the site could be included.

Thank you,

Sing

74644p (talk) 14:26, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

That site is about advertising job offers, hence it is not suitable to link to here. Please read WP:NOTADVERTISING.

Also, the data on their site is unsourced. They could have just made it up. It is not a reliable source. Please read WP:UNSOURCED and WP:SOURCE.

Finally, this should be discussed on the article's talk page. jfeise (talk) 16:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and another issue: You say "we wanted to link it up to Wikipedia" and "Please let us know how this is biased or in complete." That indicates that you are posting on behalf of that particular website. That is against Wikipedia rules. See WP:COI. Your site is simply not acceptable as link. See WP:ELNO, WP:ADV. Please do not add the link again. Thank you. jfeise (talk) 22:20, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

University of America

As we don't have a source stating that this is unaccredited (the link is to its website), and it is ASIC accredited [1] and evidently has some states recognising its degrees, I think it has to be removed. See my talk page also. Doug Weller (talk) 06:14, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, but Accreditation Service for International Colleges does seem to be official. Its status in accrediting non-UK institutions may be questionable, I'm not sure. But my main problem with keeping the university in the list is the lack of a source. Doug Weller (talk) 07:20, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Moved to the bottom of the page.

Dear Jfeise, you cannot continue to break the Wikipedia rules because of your personal but unfounded biases against ASIC listed in Wikipedia itself as a legitimate agency. You have no reliable source to support your personal biases which you brought to wikipedia, a worldwide platform for knowledge, you must adhere to the rule ,which is ,if there's no reliable source , then the entry should deleted!

    Since you cannot prove  ASIC is not a legitimate  U.K government  recognised accrediting agency , and whereas ,you cannot prove that The UA  degrees  have not been accpted for employement in United States by a prospective  employer,whereas  The UA can prove that all their degrees  have been accepted by US government  and private sector employers, you are now fighting a war ,  i know for sure you can never be the winner. 

First, please post at the bottom. Second, ASIC's own website says that their "International Accreditation" is a non-governmental process: http://www.asicuk.com/university-accreditation/ Third, your talk about "fighting a war" is completely non-sensical. It seems that you are affiliated with either this institution or ASIC. Otherwise, you wouldn't know what UA can "prove" or not. Thanks for making it obvious that you have a COI. 07:59, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Copied again from the top.

Dear Jfeise

I have no COI , rather , you seem to have COI and it is like you are at war that institution. Only you can explain what's the matter between you and that institution 1. All your entries toward that institution are all personal and deeply biased. 2. If it is not so , why would you not listen advice from another senior editor telling you we cannot list something without a liable source. 3 that entry's website cannot be it's source .4 The ASIC site you quoted supports the facts that all accrediting agencies in the west are non governmental independent but government recognised . It did not prove anything against the legitimacy of ASIC accreditation .it is just other US regional non governmental accreditation with international scope of accreditation but recognised by the USDE as ASI is recognised by U.K government. You personal vested interst and biases blinded your reasoning abilities , o.k , are US accrediting agencies government al agencies? Some even accredit school outside the USA as ASIC , why not those schools as well bc they did not receive accreditation from the accrediting agencies in their countries of origins?

According to http://www.cde.ca.gov/re/sd/details.asp?cds=33752006142293&public=N , "University of AMerica" is a High School. It is therefore not an institution of higher education, and that justifies the inclusion on the list, since it falsely claims to be an institution of higher education. jfeise (talk) 08:32, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

And again, PLEASE post at the BOTTOM! It is not that hard to understand! UA is a High School, not a university. jfeise (talk) 08:34, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Moved to the bottom of the page.

Dear Jfeise , I just saw that the university listed their BPPE registration number and may call BPPE licensing department to verify instead of rushing to conclusion . I still maintain as unbiased mind , that institution should not be there. ASIC is listed with Wikipedia as a recognized Accrediting agency with international scope like othe US national and regional agencies accrediting schools outside the US. Please , let us be honest for once,Wikipedia is not an American platform form to voice our American biases towards other international accreditation agencies but should be a reliable encyclopedia with a global viewpoint.

I have not seen any such registration number on their website. I would appreciate if you could post the link to that. jfeise (talk) 17:25, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

PNI edits

You deleted the basic PNI history and background information to insert a libelous, opinionated and nonfactual personal point of view. If you want to reference news articles for sure go ahead but to use wikipedia as a platform to go beyond the basic news to publish your misleading personal attacks is not what wikipedia is about — Preceding unsigned comment added by Braykart (talk • contribs) 17:43, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

The information about the security breach is sourced. If you don't like the source, get them to retract it. Wikipedia is not about deleting sourced info that you don't like. In addition, where in the world do you see "personal attacks"??? I only added sourced information to the article. jfeise (talk) 17:47, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I have reverted the addition of the "Financial Implications" section of this article as it appeared to be largely speculative and original research. Your attempts to link Staples' stock price fall to the PNI data breach are not supported by any reliable sources, and cannot be allowed to remain. In general, any text that begins with "it is unclear if..." is highly speculative and has no place at Wikipedia. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:00, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Once again, I have reverted your changes to this article. You seem somewhat insistent on placing a bad spin on this event, interpreting sources to your own angle. There is nothing in the cited sources that implies that Staples is treating PNI as a separate entity, rather that Staples is letting PNI personnel investigate the issue. Also, there is no indication that "multiple news sources could not contact PNI", only that multiple attempts by Geekwire were unsuccessful (which could be more a reflection on Geekwire's status as a news agency than on PNI's attempts to hide information). I urge you to bring this matter up at the talk page rather than continue to try to add material without consensus. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Other sources, e.g., KrebsOnSecurity, also reported that they couldn't contact PNI. I could have added that link in addition, but it is already there as reference on another sentence. The information is sourced, and there is no "spin." I personally only care that the information about the breach is there. jfeise (talk) 18:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

And btw, you earlier had deleted most of the sources about the security breach. At least now you left them in... jfeise (talk) 18:28, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Please stop removing good sources about the security breach A8v (talk) 11:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Your information is not right! In Switzerland only AAQ www.aaq.ch/en could accreditation

Please change it, and Lehman010 (talk) 03:05, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Eduqua

Hi I do not know how to change the web, but I know the information: http://www.eduqua.ch/002alc_0204_en.htm EduQua is issued by ISO 9000 company, to most of them are training companies, if you search you can not find University of Geneva and Lunzern University on web said they are EduQua certification!

The Swiss law only accept AAQ use the word Accrediation! And only AAQ swiss agency for accreditation and quality assurance could accredited higher education and schools! please check: www.aaq.ch https://www.admin.ch/opc/en/classified-compilation/20070429/201501010000/414.20.pdf This the law! Swiss Gov., can not accept ISO 9000 company Accrediation and issued eduqua

Please check it, many thanks, I do not like people know the wrong information, eduqua just a ISO 9000 Compnay label they do something on education, that is all!

Lehman010 (talk) 03:46, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi jfeise , Just thought you should know that this same message was placed on my User talk:Auditguy and has been addressed. Thanks. Audit Guy (talk) 11:26, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I found a good H1B archive resource that could be a help for others.. http://consultantdb.com/h1b_visa_sponsors/2014/

Hi Jfeise,

I found a good H1b Archive resource that could be a help for others " http://consultantdb.com/h1b_visa_sponsors/2014/ ".

This site has been very helpful in terms of getting information without any restrictions. Didn't compel me to pay or even register.

Give it one more thought, I know and I could see that you have contributed a lot to Wiki.

I leave it up to you, whether you want to keep the link or remove. Last but not the least, I see quite a few other Commercial websites linked from the same page.

With due respect, I leave final decision up to you.

Keep up the good work

That site was discussed before. That site is an advertising site, which is not acceptable to link to from Wikipedia. Please read WP:ELNO, WP:ADV and WP:NOTADVERTISING. Thank you. jfeise (talk) 18:38, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

comments on Victoria Switzerland

Read carefully before you label texts as promotional etc etc. You are not qualified to judge this text. YOu have no management education background or accreditation qualifications. The adjusted text refers to published articles recognizing AAIME innovative approach . Articles published in recognized journals. Again, read before you utter .... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.196.81.11 (talk) 14:11, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

It IS promotional text, and has no place in this article. The article is not about an accreditation agency, which isn't recognized by any authority to begin with, the article is about an educational institution. Unless the educational institution has accreditation recognized by the authorities, it is not accredited. jfeise (talk) 14:39, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

And of course, you haven't provided any references for the claimed published articles. Further, since you claim I am not qualified, what are your qualifications? Are you affiliated with the institution? If so, you'd have a conflict of interest. Please read up on WP:COI. jfeise (talk) 15:14, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

You are way behind your competencies Mr ... You demonstrate utter lack of knowledge of management education industry and have the arrogance to provide this empty response. Articles referred to in text are listed in Google and could be found with little effort even for somebody like you. Key Accreditation agencies in the USA, for example are private foundations not related to any regulatory authority. Your statement regarding recognition by an authority reveals utter ignorance of the tenants of the process and structure of the management education and accreditation industries. You should be pursued, criminally, for damaging the image of a recognized institution. Come out in the open Mr X. Msselnamaki (talk) 05:48, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

A personal attack. How lame. Please read WP:OR. If you claim something in an article, you provide a reference. Basic Wikipedia rule. If your assertions were true, you would have no problem to provide reliable sources for it. You don't, ergo, your claims don't belong in the article.

Also, your user name suggests that you are the founder of VU as well as the owner of these fake accreditation agencies. You have a conflict of interest. Please read [[WP:COI[]]. jfeise (talk) 06:29, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Mr X. Who is judging my contribution? You!!!! I am referring to a fundamental change in the conceptual and operational foundations of the management education and accreditation industry . Change that, apparently, goes beyond the limited world and comprehension of a "private pilot" . The AAIME framework is published by, be ready, the academy of management. As I said , you could , and must, be pursued , legally, for undermining the global interests of an organization. If my contribution is found constructive by peers including the academy of management who are you to challenge that!!!!! Hiding behind a claim of self interest does not give you the right to inflict far reaching damage on people and organizations. Again, come out in the open Mr X!!!! Msselnamaki (talk) 07:57, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Not only a personal attack, but a legal threat. I am more than ever convinced that my edits are correct. I suggest you read WP:LEGAL. Wikipedia is not your soapbox: WP:SOAPBOX. jfeise (talk) 15:30, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Jfeise incompetent and slanderous handling of Victoria University Switzerland page

Jfeise insists on citing false and slanderous information on the Victoria university page. This is not only legally punishable but professionally reprehensible. He hides at times behind conflict of interest and at other times behind obscure legalities.. He should reveal his real identity and allow a legal persecution take its course. There is no place for individuals like this within an important vehicle as Wikipedia. The alternative is bringing the case to the social media and let Wikipedia bear the brunt.

Jfeise common use of the word "fake" reflects the world he lives in. His deprived picture of management education industry and reference to " authorities" reveals intellectual simplicity beyond believe. His resort to slander, instead of professional judgment is typical . how does Wikipedia allow midgets like this to operate within its domain!!!!

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.196.81.11 (talk) 17:42, 14 May 2016 (UTC) 

Another personal attack and legal threat. Please read WP:COI and WP:LEGAL. And fake legal threats without even knowing the meaning of the words thrown at me are laughable, anyway.

Fact is that VU is not accredited. The owner of a university creating an accreditation agency and claiming that a somehow new concept is used is completely irrelevant and doesn't make VU accredited. An accredited institution is accredited by an accreditation agency recognized by the authorities. That's all there is to it. jfeise (talk) 18:14, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Victoria university Switzerland mishandling by wikipedia

Extended correspondence with an editor, Jfeise, is producing little impact. False and damaging statements within the Victoria University Switzerland page are being reversed by what seems to be an incompetent and immature editor. Insistence on the inaccurate and damaging text will invite legal action and claims for compensation for global damage to market prospects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.196.81.11 (talk) 17:32, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Please read WP:LEGAL. jfeise (talk) 18:16, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

University of Northern Virginia

Hello! You have been engaged in a protracted dispute about how to word the lead sentence at the article University of Northern Virginia. I protected the page for two days, hoping you all would go to the talk page and actually discuss the issue, instead of simply reverting each other. That did not happen. There has been no discussion at the talk page, by anyone. Instead, the edit warring resumed within minutes of the protection expiring. I have now blocked the page for a week. During that time I expect to see some actual discussion at the talk page, with a real attempt to understand each others' position and work out some kind of consensus wording.. I remind you all that Wikipedia works by consensus, and that edit warring is a blockable offense. --MelanieN (talk) 03:18, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Insisting on writing misleading information on the University of Northern Virginia Page

It was formerly accredited by the Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and Schools (ACICS) from 2003-2008,(please check source Ref1 Page A30)

Insisting on writing that it was unaccredited is misleading and false statement and contradicts the State Council of Higher Education for Virginia reference source document (Ref 1) Page 30).

Why are you insisting on doing this ? what would you benefit ? We are trying to make this website an accurate tool for presenting internet users with correct and accurate information while maintaining neutrality and good ethics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Honorable gentleman (talk • contribs) 10:03, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I explained my reasoning on the article's talk page. Please discuss the issue there. The accreditation section says that the institution was accredited until 2008, so the information is there. There is nothing misleading. Not everything belongs in the lead. jfeise (talk) 14:34, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Crowfurt

Seems we have a problem here. Any suggestions? Doug Weller talk 05:35, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, looks like it. I see you already banned this user for a bit. Maybe that helps. jfeise (talk) 13:05, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

West Germany, then Germany

Howdy, the country was known as West Germany from 1949 to 1990. Then after the reunification, Germany. GoodDay (talk) 17:22, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

That was the colloquial name. The official name was and still is Federal Republic of Germany, in German: Bundesrepublik Deutschland. After unification, just saying "Germany is fine because there is only one Germany now, but the official name is still FRG. jfeise (talk) 17:51, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

It's more clarifying for readers, if West Germany is used, before 1990. GoodDay (talk) 18:04, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Accrediting Council of Independent Colleges and Schools (ACICS) Accreditation

The Accrediting Council of Independent Colleges and Schools (ACICS) is no longer recognized by the US Department of Education as an accreditor. It does not matter whether it is appealing because its accreditation is currently revoked. Do you work for ACICS? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bcf1291 (talk • contribs) 21:34, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Huh? No, I don't work for them. But according to articles, they are still recognized, because the 30 days for appeal are not over. This is called due process. As of this time, ACICS is, if you or I like it or not, still a recognized accreditation agency. jfeise (talk) 21:51, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

However, ACICS does not accredit doctoral degrees. Look at US Department of Education's description of ACICS. Do not revert back again or I will request the pages to be locked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bcf1291 (talk • contribs) 22:16, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Granted, ACICS doesn't accredit doctorates, but that is orthogonal to them still being a recognized accreditor. As of this time, ACICS is still a recognized accreditor. Please do not change that in the articles until it is official. At this point, they have Due process rights. They are still recognized. Oh, and Wikipedia relies on consensus. Discuss things in the talk pages before changing the articles. jfeise (talk) 22:22, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I need help to understand the 18-month probation period for ACICS-recognized schools. Does it mean that these schools are still technically accredited while they are seeking a new accreditor? The Northwestern Polytechnic University page suggests no, but take a look at the Stratford University page and history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bcf1291 (talk • contribs) 05:54, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

It is my understanding that they are not accredited anymore. The DoE just allows them to continue in the federal student aid program for 18 more months.

The DoE accreditation pages for ACICS-accredited institutions, e.g., for Northwestern (https://ope.ed.gov/accreditation/InstAccrDetails.aspx?756e697469643d3130353633312663616d70757349643d30267264743d342f372f3230313720323a32313a333420414d) have a question mark next to the agency name that opens a popup which says:

"the Department is authorized to permit institutions participating in the federal student aid programs that are accredited by an agency that is no longer recognized up to 18 months of continued participation to obtain alternative accreditation from a different, recognized agency." jfeise (talk) 06:32, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming what I thought. The Stratford University page is being vandalized. Employees from the school (based on the IP address) are reverting the "unaccredited" designation, and I do not know how to lock the page. Bcf1291 (talk) 17:12, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Only admins can lock pages. jfeise (talk) 17:14, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I am reading the instructions on protecting the page, but I do not see the option in the header? Bcf1291 (talk) 17:17, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Somebody brought up the issue in a WikiProject for universities:

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Universities

How to describe institutions previously accredited by ACICS A few months ago, the U.S. Department of Education stripped recognition of the Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and Schools (ACICS), a national accreditor that focused on for-profit institutions in the U.S. The accreditor has sued the federal government to retain this recognition but as of right now the government's decision stands. The 245 institutions that were previously accredited by ACICS have all received approval from the Department of Education to continue receiving federal financial aid for up to 18 months while they seek a new accreditor.

The question on the table: How do we describe the accreditation status of these institutions? One editor has begun changing the articles of the affected institutions to describe them as "unaccredited." I'm not sure that is entirely accurate as that is how we describe institutions that are not accredited at all, usually because they are diploma mills or scams that have never been accredited or in a few rare instances because they have ideological objections to the process of accreditation. Since in most cases "unaccredited" is shorthand for "scam" my primary worry is that simply saying "unaccredited" paints many of these institutions with a broad brush that is the wrong color.

Should we say that these institutions were previously accredited by ACICS and are now seeking a new accreditor without actually saying that they're "unaccredited?" Are they "provisionally accredited" right now (personally, I lean away from this option because it sounds too technical and I think it's actually language used by some accreditors for institutions that are in the process of applying)? Are there other options or considerations? I haven't yet found any good language in other reliable sources but I imagine there is some out there for someone else who has some more time to look!

There are 245 institutions that are affected by this so I really think we should figure out a consistent approach for all of the articles affected by this issue. Feel free to drop notices to this discussion in the appropriate places or expand to this to an RfC or something similar. ElKevbo (talk) 13:34, 19 April 2017 (UTC) Bcf1291 (talk) 16:17, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Jfeise. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

hello, just wanted to thank you for your patience in making the H-1B article better. I think now the article is in good shape as I read it so I am stopping my edits unless there is major news. thanks! Patriotmouse (talk) 04:49, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

No, I want to add the date and month of the year 2000 of when Namecheap domain registrar was launched. It's valid. Please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.140.131.14 (talk) 15:51, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

For that we would need a reliable source. You saying it is valid is not a reliable source. If you can provide a link to an article that states the date the company was incorporated, then it can be added. Until then, the only link we have says 2000, not a specific date in 2000. Please read WP:OR. Thank you. jfeise (talk) 16:08, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 01:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

List of unaccredited institutions of higher education

Hi User:Jfeise, you have reverted my edit citing it didn't meet RS. Appreciate if you could please explain why. Please specifically highlight the citations in the target article that you think don't comply with the RS. Thank you. RationalPuff (talk) 23:53, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

The first line of the article says " You can help by adding missing items with reliable sources." That means if you are adding an institution claiming it is not accredited we need a reliable source saying so. Somebody just claiming an institution isn't accredited is not enough. A reliable source would be a webpage of the institution stating it isn't accredited, a newspaper article, a governmental report, etc. jfeise (talk) 00:08, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi User:Jfeise, thanks but that doesn't really answer my question. The target article has the whole bunch of appropriate citations. I'm adding it back. Appreciate the if you could please discuss in the talk page of the article, if not convinced. Revert/deletion doesn't serve the purpose. Many thanks. RationalPuff (talk) 21:01, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi User:Jfeise, please do not remove content. Appreciate if you could discuss your concern in the talk page of the article. RationalPuff (talk) 18:25, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:01, 23 November 2021 (UTC)