User talk:67.17.195.174

Welcome!
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions&#32;so far. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

Here are some links to pages you may find useful:
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but if you wish to acquire additional privileges, you can simply create an account. It's free, requires no personal information, and lets you:
 * Create new pages and rename pages
 * Edit semi-protected pages
 * Upload images
 * Have your own watchlist, which shows when articles you are interested in have changed

If you edit without an account, your IP address (67.17.195.174) is used to identify you instead.

We hope that you choose to become a Wikipedian and  [ create an account] . If you need help, check out Questions, or you can  to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. We also have an intuitive guide on editing if you're interested. By the way, please make sure to sign and date your talk page comments with four tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;).

Happy editing! Ninney (talk) 19:36, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Untitled
I believe the information I included about competitive tests should be restored, perhaps with independent review to remove any of my unintentional bias. Yes, I am an employee of McGraw-Hill Education, but my intent is to inform readers about a historic shift in the role of the GED test among national tests, not "introduce promotional material". I believe it is important for readers to know these two facts:

FACT #1 - The 2014 GED was developed in sole partnership with Pearson. Previous versions of the GED were distributed by multiple education companies, including Pearson, McGraw-Hill Education, and Education Testing Service.

FACT #2 - Two major vendors have recently developed tests as competition to the 2014 GED, to address needs that were fulfilled primarily by past versions of the GED.

These changes have been widely discussed in the media, and independent confirmation is readily available. For example, here's an article I found with a Google search for the phrase "GED competition": http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/05/16/ged-faces-competition-states-weigh-two-new-entrants

Had I intended bias with Fact #1, I might have expressed an opinion that use of a single vendor discourages use of competitive products, and increases student costs. For Fact #2, I might have avoided mentioning the HiSET - since it is from Education Testing Service, not McGraw-Hill Education - or promoted the TASC - which is from McGraw-Hill Education. Instead, I chose to state the facts as simply as possible within the natural flow of the existing article, with uniform references and links to test and vendor pages for all three competitive tests. I believe that the original article included significant bias towards Pearson, acting as a marketing piece for them, rather than presenting these new facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kilo Weson (talk • contribs) 2014-01-10T02:34:32

July 2015
Hello, I'm Crystallizedcarbon. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to TAM— because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 15:50, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.