Talk:Neumont College of Computer Science

Untitled
Neumont has engineered a collaborative, team based approach to educating the most sought after software developers in the world. - This language is verbatim from their advertising.

Wikipedia = advertising now
This article was obviously edited for, ahem, "clarity" by someone working for the University. I don't know whether it should be kept as-is, reverted, or just plain old deleted. The editor in question is 67.172.250.48 - a Utah IP. Musteval 19:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, this page is completely an advertisement and does not come close to being "neutral point of view".
 * --Megannnn 20:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I understand your concern regarding the NPOV aspect. The University's mission is to "educate the most sought after..." which is why that particular language is included in the very brief description.  I have informed the college that they should consider a fairly significant 'upgrade' to the entry, including keeping the NPOV in mind throughout.  However, bear in mind, per the information in the article (that for a US accredited institution must be based on fact and not hyperbole), that Neumont's first graduating class is achieving salary levels at a premium to the US national average for computer science graduates.  --Scottmck 01:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree this is a plug for the University my vote would be to delete. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.126.163.20 (talk • contribs) 15:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC).


 * I had the opportunity to interview several Neumont students who were within 1-2 semesters of graduation. I think they should remane their program from "computer science" to "visual studio." They learn how to use Windows APIs, but they don't learn any CS theory. They had never even heard of big oh notation. While I believe the article to be technically accurate, it is certainly not the whole story. 63.230.124.81 20:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The article implies that traditional college education doesn't prepare graduates to manage teams and oversee products, while Neumont does.


 * While I agree wholeheartedly with the first point, the claim isn't verifiable, and isn't suitable for an encyclopedia article; if the claim can be verified, sources should be cited.


 * The latter claim, that Neumont graduates are better prepared for leadership in real-world development projects, lacks sources for verification. Given how new the program is, statistically significant data is unlikely to be available.  I'm much more skeptical of this claim.  While Neumont's curriculum is structured to give students the kind of experiences that most graduates get during their first year or two of employment, who would let a kid with just a year or two of experience lead an important product? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.195.202.79 (talk • contribs) 12:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC).


 * I'm starting to clean up this article. Neumont has been recognized in enough places now that there is a legitimate need for this article. Anybody who does a little checking up on me will see that I'm in Utah, but I'm not a marketer for Neumont. I've looked at their programs and would consider applying there if I wasn't already a student elsewhere. I do work for a University, though, so I'm interested in Universities in general and would like to see this article cleaned up and fleshed out. &mdash; Joey Day (talk&middot;edits) 20:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The content which had been labeled as biased has been updated to reflect the sources sited. Nemont (talk) 22:48, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Now that this page contains both controversey and fact it does not read like an advertisement. All content is linked and appears to be factual. Removing advertising linkBerstabit (talk) 01:00, 5 April 2013 (UTC) berstabit, April 4, 2013 Berstabit (talk) 01:00, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Deletion
I have deleted this article, and recreated it in a limited form, because the vast majority of its content was copied from pages such as this. Do not add copyrighted material to Wikipedia; however, additional original content is greatly appreciated. Daveydweeb ( chat/review! ) 23:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

linuxsymposium.org
http://www.linuxsymposium.org/

Why is this link on this page? -Indolences 20:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Controversy
In March 2006, The New York Times reported that Neumont University was unable to acquire financial insurance until they forced Gary D. Kennedy, a well-known investor from Salt Lake City, Utah, to step down from their board of directors, because of Kennedy's history of being sued multiple times by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for accounting fraud and bribery.

In October 2006, InsideHigherEd.com revealed that, despite Neumont University only being 3 years old at the time, and despite the institution's lack of recognition by any federally-regulated regional accreditation bodies within the United States, the institution had been cited in the final revision of the U.S. Department of Education's Commission on the Future of Higher Education report for "educating the most sought-after software developers in the world" by chairman Charles Miller, without additional support or input from other members of the commission, as a key example of "innovation in curriculum development and program delivery" in the United States higher education system.

In August 2012, Neumont University filed a lawsuit in federal court against the website management company Little Bizzy LLC to request an injunction against the CollegeTimes website, which had been hosted on the Little Bizzy server cloud, with claims of business disparagement due to negative student reviews appearing on the site. CollegeTimes responded by accusing Neumont University of spreading false rumors about their college reviews service, and accusing the Salt Lake Tribune of falsely reporting on the story.

Controversy (Updated)
In March 2006, The New York Times reported that Neumont University was unable to acquire financial insurance while Gary D. Kennedy, a well-known investor from Salt Lake City, Utah, was on the board of directors.

In a March 2006, The New York Times article on Gary D. Kennedy, an investor from Salt Lake City, Utah, said he had considered involvement with the University, but due to an ongoing investigation into his personal business practices (of which he was later aquited on all charges) he withdrew from consideration,. Berstabit (talk) 17:27, 19 April 2013 (UTC)Updated to accurately reflect the content in the article, rather than editorial speculation made by the poster.

In August 2012, Neumont University filed a lawsuit in federal court against Jesse Nickles, CollegeTimes, and the website management company Little Bizzy LLC (owned by Jesse Nickles) to request an injunction against the CollegeTimes website, which had been hosted on the Little Bizzy server cloud. Neumont's complaint claims of business disparagement due to edits Nickles had made to student reviews appearing on the site. In March of 2012, default judgement was entered against Jesse Nickles and Little Bizzy, when Nickles failed to appear or defend his behavior.Berstabit (talk) 17:27, 19 April 2013 (UTC)Updated to show the current status of the ruling, and accurately reflect the defendants and complaint in the Salt Lake Tribune article

''Documenting lawsuits is quite acceptable, this section should be retained. See University_Canada_West'' Gratans (talk) 18:56, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * We are most certainly not obligated to mention every lawsuit filed by or against this university. Has the lawsuit been discussed by other prominent reliable sources?  If so, we can make an informed decision about whether it belongs in this article and in what amount.  If not, it doesn't belong here. ElKevbo (talk) 19:19, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The lawsuit mentioned is documented for the public via US federal court records. There are dozens, if not hundreds, of institutions on Wikipedia that have sections dedicated to controversy (esp. when involving lawsuits filed at the federal level), so I'm not sure why you feel this documentation is inappropriate. If it helps represent a more complete history, more Neumont controversies could be added to this section, including links to the New York Times and Inside Higher Ed, both of which have highlighted Neumont controversies. This recent lawsuit is surely relevant to Neumont's reputation and growth. Gratans (talk) 18:59, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * We generally don't use primary sources such as legal records as they usually require expert interpretation. The current source doesn't seem sufficient at all to justify including the information in an encyclopedia article.  But if the NYT or IHE has covered this then please add the material using those sources as they probably do meet the threshold for inclusion! 20:15, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * This information is not OR. It references a public lawsuit filed by Neumont, and a press release by the defendant, without further dissection. This wiki is already chalk full of self-promotional, self-published items released by Neumont. If you are claiming to support those as appropriate and not this item, I would seriously question your personal agenda regarding this wiki. Feedback from other editors may be appropriate here. Gratans (talk) 06:02, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Documents related to a lawsuit and a press release are completely unconvincing as evidence of the importance and notability of an issue. You're welcome to seek input from others (Here or here may be good places to start) but I doubt that anyone else will support your position unless you can provide additional evidence.
 * If you believe that there is material in this article that violates WP:OR, WP:N, or other accepted practices and policies, please feel free to remove it! Many college and university articles attract additions that praise the subject and are somewhat off-balance so another set of eyes and hands working to correct that in this and other articles would be most welcome!  ElKevbo (talk) 19:00, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * As no other editors seem to share your views, I've reverted this edit to the main page. The lawsuit has been covered by the Salt Lake Tribune (a national newspaper), as described and referenced within this edit. It is beginning to seem to have a personal agenda for keeping this material out of the main page of this wiki. It is strange that you don't seem interested in removing self-promotional spam in this wiki, but do seem extremely determined to keep this information out. Gratans (talk) 12:21, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I've returned the "Unbalanced" flag to this wiki after Neumont staff (69.27.21.250 = First Digital ISP, Neumont University campus) removed it and deleted the Controversy paragraph, replacing the facts and references with self-published OR and self-promotional materials from the neumont.edu homepage. Recommend this wiki for immediate oversight. Gratans (talk) 22:32, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * User 69.27.21.250 continues to spam this wiki and delete entire sections of the article that do not portray them favorably. I've replaced Controversy section for a 3rd time. Gratans (talk) 17:55, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

User is trying to edit content to make it correct: All charges were dropped against Gary Kennedy, the facts of his involvement with the University are incorrect, and the timeframe listed is wrong.69.27.21.250 (talk) 19:45, 7 November 2012 (UTC)NU DOE (talk) 18:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC) Post was originally edited by an inexperienced user. All future official NU edits (based on fact from administration) will be posted by user: NU_DOE.

User is attempting to edit the content regarding the lawsuit. As the lawsuit claims, it is not suing based on Negative reviews but for the malicious editing of a forum to create an impression by the Forum owner as an effort to extort the University - as presented in lawsuit evidence.69.27.21.250 (talk) 19:52, 7 November 2012 (UTC)NU DOE (talk) 18:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC) Post was originally edited by an inexperienced user. All future official NU edits (based on fact from administration) will be posted by user: NU_DOE.

User is attempting to edit the statements regarding US Commission on Higher Education, the statements made are speculative at best.69.27.21.250 (talk) 19:52, 7 November 2012 (UTC)NU DOE (talk) 18:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC) Post was originally edited by an inexperienced user. All future official NU edits (based on fact from administration) will be posted by user: NU_DOE.

Edited the Claim against Gary Kennedy to be factually correct: In 2004, Northface Learning asked Gary D. Kennedy, a well-known investor from Salt Lake City, Utah, to step down from their Board of Directors, because of Kennedy's ongoing legal involvement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for stock manipulation. Kennedy was acquitted of all charges in 2005. 69.27.21.250 (talk) 19:57, 7 November 2012 (UTC)NU DOE (talk) 18:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC) Post was originally edited by an inexperienced user. All future official NU edits (based on fact from administration) will be posted by user: NU_DOE.

Edited content regarding US Commmission on higher education as previous language was salacious and speculative: In October 2006, InsideHigherEd.com revealed that, despite Neumont University only being 3 years old at the time, and due to the University's Nationally-accredited status, the institution had been cited in the final revision of the U.S. Department of Education's Commission on the Future of Higher Education report for "educating the most sought-after software developers in the world" by chairman Charles Miller (among claims that the Commission's report was not subject to adequate peer review) as a key example of "innovation in curriculum development and program delivery" in the United States higher education system.

Edited content regarding lawsuit as the statements of purpose behind the lawsuit were incorrect (per the documents filed: In August 2012, Neumont University filed a lawsuit in federal court against the website management company Little Bizzy LLC to request an injunction against the CollegeTimes website, which had been hosted on the Little Bizzy server cloud, with claims of business disparagement due to maliciously edited content which had been labeled as unedited, and extortion attempts from the site owner in order to discontinue these practices. CollegeTimes responded by accusing Neumont University of spreading false rumors about their college reviews service, and accusing the Salt Lake Tribune of falsely reporting on the story. 69.27.21.250 (talk) 20:07, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Content edited with User account added to more clearly reflect the references sited.

In March 2006, The New York Times reported that Gary Kennedy, an original member of the advisory board for Neumont University, had been asked to step down from the advisory board due to legal struggles with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Kennedy was facing for stock manipulation. Kennedy was later acquitted of all charges.[29]

In October 2006, InsideHigherEd.com complained about unique recognition received by Neumont University, which was only three years old at the time, in the final revision of the U.S. Department of Education'sCommission on the Future of Higher Education report with a claim that Neumont was "educating the most sought-after software developers in the world" by chairman Charles Miller. The complaint speculated that the inclusion in the report by the commission, as a key example of "innovation in curriculum development and program delivery" in the United States higher education system, lacked adequate peer review.[30]

In August 2012, Neumont University filed a lawsuit in federal court[31] against the website management company Little Bizzy LLC to request an injunction against the CollegeTimes[32] website, which had been hosted on the Little Bizzy server cloud, with claims of business disparagement due to "maliciously edited content" (which had been labeled as unedited), and submitting evidence of attempts at extortion from the site owner in order to discontinue these practices..[33] CollegeTimes responded by accusing Neumont University of spreading false rumors about their college reviews service, and accusing the Salt Lake Tribune of falsely reporting on the story.[34]Nemont (talk) 22:47, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Removed Gary Kennedy reference, not a valid "Neumont controversy" as it was a brief mention in the article and more referenced that he was considering involvement and chose not to participate, this is similar to an employee applying for a job and not accepting the position. There is no controversy.NU DOE (talk) 22:15, 22 February 2013 (UTC) NU DOE

Agree with NU DOE. The NY Times Article discussing Kennedy does not indicate controversy as he was not employed by the school. Is every potential employee of a University to be considered part of the University's record of controversy? This is not factual or a correct interpretation of the article. Kenendy was aquited of all charges and making aspersions against his character purely for the idea of generating "controvesy" is salacious and not in keeping with Wikipedia Terms of Service. Berstabit (talk) 01:06, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Someguy1221 - In reference to your changes on 4/5/2013: The egregious actions of CollegeTimes in the months following the Neumont lawsuit are relevant to the record of Neumont University vs. CollegeTimes. The complaint filed by Neumont (and subsequent legal documents) characterize the issue as Cyberstalking, harassment, and onoing libel, this is an issue of cyber harassment and extortion, not a complaint about the review posted. I am glad that you see how hideous and awful the use of that article was in Mr. Nickles cyberstalking against the University, but your edits to the Neumont page are not a correct characterization of the legal issue, or Mr. Nickles' pathological and erratic behavior and disgusting abuse of children in his pursuit to defame the University. How do you propose we correct the record to make the Wikipedia page reflect the facts of the matter?Berstabit (talk) 23:59, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, I've already said this on your talk page, but it's very simple. Find a secondary source that discusses Mr. Nickles' behavior. That's the same way everything is supposed to work on Wikipedia, and we have to make doubly sure to follow that when the subject is a living person, regardless of your feelings towards him. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Ongoing Vandalism
This wiki has been nominated for temporary semi-protection due to ongoing vandalism and edit-warring by Neumont's own staff (69.27.21.250) and employees (Nemont) (ElKevbo) after many warnings. Gratans (talk) 05:05, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Gratans, ElKevbo is a well-established editor and is not an employee of Neumont University. 72Dino (talk) 05:34, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If only I had a link on my User page to my website with tons of details about myself including my full CV... ElKevbo (talk) 05:36, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Then I suppose he will have no problem following Wikipedia guidelines instead of single-handedly deleting entire sections of wiki articles (multiple times, without consensus). Unless of course he has alternative reasons for assisting the spammers from Neumont University who have daily vandalized this page since 2006? Gratans (talk) 05:55, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Stepping back from this ridiculous conversation to focus on the topic at hand: I made several reasonable edits to the "Controversy" section but they were all reverted (without discussion and baseless accusations of "spamming"). Specifically, I:

a. Removed a paragraph discussing Gary Kennedy. The only cited reference makes only one mention of Neumont University so this doesn't seem to merit mention in this article at all. Further, the paragraph mentions Kennedy's "history of being sued multiple times by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for accounting fraud and bribery" but it omits that he was acquitted. So not only is this a issue of due weight it has also crossed the line into being a BLP violation. The other material in question may be up for discussion; this is not.

b. Removed a paragraph discussing Neumont's inclusion in the Spellings Commission final report. Like the paragraph describing Kennedy, this paragraph only included one reference so it doesn't seem like something we should include in an encyclopedia article. Further, the paragraph completely omits that the cited reference is an editorial and not a bona fide news article or report. The author of the piece - Kenneth Green - is certainly a respected higher ed scholar but that doesn't change the fact that a single opinion piece doesn't warrant a full paragraph in an encyclopedia article.

c. Removed two primary sources from the remaining paragraph. Not only is it poor form to cite primary sources in Wikipedia, they're plain unnecessary in this paragraph since there are two other sources already cited in the section.


 * It is hilarious that you feel the New York Times does not qualify as a good enough reference for Wikipedia. Just goes to show that Neumont spammers will stop at nothing. Gratans (talk) 05:35, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm now going to remove the BLP violation again. It must be significantly edited before it can be included in Wikipedia. Please discuss any objections to or questions about the changes I previously made as the only objections made so far have no basis in reality (my edits were not "spam" nor am in cahoots with this university). ElKevbo (talk) 06:09, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with Gratans--Collegestud (talk) 22:37, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


 * See Sockpuppet investigations/Gratans. 72Dino (talk) 22:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Sockpuppet reported for banned user 69.27.21.250 regarding suspected puppet Nemont. Gratans (talk) 06:30, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Looks like another editor agrees with me, so I'm reverting the Controversy section removal by ElKevbo who did so again without any consensus. Sorry to disappoint you but I have only one Wikipedia account. It looks like we can safely assume that 72Dino is a Neumont staff member as well as ElKevbo at this point. I will continue recommending this wiki for semi-protection as long as this vandalism does not stop by all these Neumont employees and spammers. Gratans (talk) 05:25, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Except that's not all you did. this edit not only removes random improvements (such as adding wikilinks), it make the claim that the Kennedy was 'forced' to step down, when the source says he was 'asked' to. Even if there's consensus to add the 'In October 2006' paragraph back there was no discussion let alone consensus for these changes. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:34, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the input. I agree with you - editors (i.e. ElKevbo) should stop deleting the paragraph without discussing first. We have 3 editors already that support retaining this paragraph (Gratans and Gwickwire and Collegestud for starters), Does anyone have access to the edits made to this paragraph that included relevant wikilinks? I couldn't find it intact due to the ongoing vandalism by ElKevbo. Gratans (talk) 05:40, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * You are misconstruing what I said. I never said that "editors (i.e. ElKevbo) should stop deleting the paragraph without discussing first." Stuartyeates (talk) 18:52, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Found them and updated wiki according to suggestions from Stuartyeates. Gratans (talk) 06:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * And in case I need to remind other editors, the Neumont University campus (69.27.21.250) was already banned from Wikipedia for ongoing vandalism since 2006. This institution has dozens of other Wikipedia accounts and will continue to vandalize this wiki daily until we get it locked down after cleaning up all content. Gratans (talk) 06:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with Gratans--Collegestud (talk) 18:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Reverted deletions by ElKevbo for the 5th time now. Why do you continue deleting entire sections without discussing it here first? I've gone ahead and left you a warning on your User Talk page explaining that further vandalism of this wiki page may result in you being banned from further edits. Please stop, let's discuss all major deletions. I'm asking nicely - plus, its against Wikipedia guidelines what you are doing. Gratans (talk) 10:58, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * There is no consensus yet to keep that content. There needs to be a consensus to keep it, and that has not been done.   It must be resolved on the talk page first. Per WP:BRD, Gratans was bold and added the controversial section here.  It was reverted here.  That means it stays off the article while it is being discussed.  72Dino (talk) 15:23, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * (Ignoring that "revert[ing] deletions...for the 5th time now" is way past 3RR...) If you object to my edits then you owe us all the courtesy of explaining precisely why you object to them other than your bizarre accusations that I'm in cahoots with the subject of this article. I explained precisely why I removed the material in my first comment in this section.  Now it's your turn to respond to those points and help us understand why you object to them. ElKevbo (talk) 17:06, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The point is that you all have been around Wikipedia a long time (much longer than I have, obviously), and you could easily gang up and get me banned if you really wanted to. However, I hope that you might instead acknowledge that yet another high profile wiki page is being vandalized by a very organized team of spammers and help do something about it, regardless of my personal involvement or opinions. Dozens of lives have been ruined by the inaccurate information spread around the internet by companies like this one and aiding their spamming campaign because of petty edit-warring is rather disappointing in my view. Gratans (talk) 10:30, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Stop slinging labels at people with whom you disagree (really, I'm a "spammer?" What links have I continually added to articles and promoted?).  And stop with the over-the-top bulshit (really, "dozens of lives have been ruined" by people having content disagreements over articles like the one describing Neumont University?).  I'm glad that you appear to finally be coming around to the idea of meaningfully engaging with other editors but if you're going to stick around you should learn to act more like a serious editor with whom others can engage without having to dodge meaningless accusations and hyperbole. ElKevbo (talk) 15:11, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The fact that you think my above feedback is solely about you is quite illustrative of your narcissistic, inhospitable behavior on Wikipedia. Now that you've finally stooped to the level of cussing at other editors, it goes to show just how classy you are and how you refuse to approach editing this wiki objectively. You've clearly made editing and updating this wiki a completely personal issue (self-centered issue) rather than encyclopedic issue as it should be - your biased intentions should now be quite clear to everyone. P.S. please don't plagiarize arguments I've already made against you, think of your own opinions. Gratans (talk) 17:27, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Moving forward, thank you ElKevbo and 72Dino for finally engaging in productive discussion. (ElKevbo, you claim to have explained your actions regarding deleting the Inside Higher Ed "controversy" paragraph, but in fact you have NOT yet done so to date, anywhere on this Talk page that I could find.) The reason I support keeping the paragraph about the Inside Higher Ed investigation into Neumont University is because IHE is arguably the most authoritative magazine in the United States regarding higher education issues and policy. The story they broke in 2006 involves George W. Bush's historic Commission on Higher Education, widely considered to be the most important influence on higher education policy that the US government has initiated in recent decades. Personal opinions aside, this story involves a former president of the USA, the US Department of Education, and the subject of this wiki page itself, Neumont University; the scandal was directly investigated by IHE who are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia page ... (they also are indexed by Google and Yahoo News which is rather illustrative). Checking (much) earlier edits to this Talk page, other editors support this reference too. So, please explain why you believe this is not a notable reference? Gratans (talk) 10:30, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I've already explained my reasoning above under "b." In summary: It's an editorial and it's dishonest to include it in an encyclopedia article as if it were a genuine news or investigative article.  (And for what it's worth The Chronicle of Higher Education is still the preeminent higher education news source in the U.S. although IHE has been making steady inroads since it was founded a few years by former Chronicle staffers.) ElKevbo (talk) 15:11, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * In other words, you have no reason (supported by Wikipedia guidelines) for removing it besides (apparently) your own personal hatred of Inside Higher Ed. (Other editors please note that ElKevbo also argued that The New York Times should not be considered a trustworthy source for Wikipedia articles.) Shall we assume you are a partisan supporter of The Chronicle, or just an inexplicably loyal guardian of Neumont University? Gratans (talk) 17:27, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Gratans: If you want to make compelling arguments I suggest you start toning down your rhetoric and stop assuming that editors are Neumont University employees. ElKevbo and 72Dino have been here for years before you arrived and started editing this article. You need to stop, think it through, and look at their user contributions before making outlandish (nonsensical) claims. -- Marco Guzman, Jr Talk  18:08, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The five minutes it took you to condescend to me could have been better spent lending your opinion to the discussion at hand. For the record, I'm not the one who needs to tone down - it is ElKevbo that continues to cuss at me, which I reported to Wikipedia administrators. And just because he has been here a long time does not mean Neumont University (and the other for-profit colleges he seems very determined to watch over on Wikipedia) do not have ways to influence his editing habits. If any editors are willing to contribute their views on this article that has been removed multiple times since 2006, please share your feedback below. Gratans (talk) 18:15, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

This page is subject to ongoing vandalism by "Twine4" who's only contributions to Wikipedia appear to be disparagement of Neumont University. Recommending that this page be locked from his future edits or additional sock puppet accounts.Berstabit (talk) 17:54, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Date
There are two founded dates given, 2002 and 2003. Which is correct? Rich Farmbrough, 22:57, 24 December 2012 (UTC).

NU was founded in 2002 and began teaching classes in 2003. Request made to clarify this section for accuracy. User: NU DOE (talk) 18:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC) NU_DOE 01/04/2013

Page protected
I have fully protected this page per this discussion. We should forestall the possibility that editors' details are revealed if the subpoenas are approved in a court of law; this will ensure fewer editors have their anonymity compromised. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:24, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I've removed the protection since the subpoena was withdrawn. L Faraone  01:27, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

The page appears to require locking from future edits. User "Twine4" is using this page as part of an ongoing vendetta against the University to distribute misinformation. Both articles he "reverted" do not back up the claims he is making. Neumont University's complaint in the Salt Lake Tribune article is that the content on the CollegeTimes website is edited for disparagement, the complaint (and Tribune article) do not reference an interest by the University in silencing dissenting opinion. The user "Twine4" appears not to be a legitimate user but instead a sock puppet account for the defendant in the law suit. Berstabit (talk) 17:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 January 2013
Please place { {subst:spa|Example} } Next to the signature of User:Nemont.NU DOE (talk) 18:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC) Post using the Nemont User name were originally created by an inexperienced user. All future official NU related edits posted by user: NU_DOE will come from the same user IP address as the original Nemont user.

GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * ❌ Talk page is not protected, user's signature is not in the article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:17, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

NU was founded in 2002 and began teaching classes in January of 2003. Request made to clarify this section for accuracy. User: NU DOE (talk) 18:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC) NU_DOE 01/04/2013


 * The content which had been disputed as biased was updated to reflect the sources sited. Currently banned user (Gratans and Collegestud) added comments and warning labels which are not longer relevant. Request to remove advertising labels from the NU page, or for guidance as to what else needs to be modified. NU DOE (talk) 22:48, 12 November 2012

references for lede
There appears to be a mini edit war about which ref to use in the lede for 'for-profit' Maybe we have have both links on the same reference? Stuartyeates (talk) 03:04, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Editors making edits to an article in no way constitutes an "edit war." ElKevbo (talk) 03:14, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2016
Rduane (talk) 20:28, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Please change our designation from "for-profit technical institute" to "private for-profit university" because this designation fits our institution better.

Thanks,

Rob Duane rob.duane@neumont.edu


 * Why? There's no such thing as a "public, for-profit university." The extra word is redundant. Flyte35 (talk) 20:36, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 21:34, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * As a point of information, this institution's Basic Carnegie Classification (shown here) is "Special Focus Four-Year: Other Technology-Related Schools." This is a 4-year institution "where a high concentration of degrees is in a single field or set of related fields." So although I'm not wild about the "technical institute" label it may indeed be appropriate. ElKevbo (talk) 21:53, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Certainly moreso than "university." --JBL (talk) 22:45, 11 February 2016 (UTC)