User talk:TallMagic

This is my talk page. You may leave me messages here and I will probably respond here.  ''Please post new messages at the bottom of my talk page. Please use headlines when starting new talk topics. Thank you.''

From GeroVital1
How could you say that I am vandalizing your page. I just add that your list is absolutely not official and does not apply legally in 49 states and in the rest of the world. Could you give me your source stating the contrary. Also are you in charge of editing this page or could i appeal to somebody higher than you. Regards  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerovital1 (talk • contribs) 19:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Gerovital1, Please put new text in a new section at the bottom of the talk page. Also please sign all comments you place on talk pages by putting four tildes (~) at the end of your comment. I did not say that your recent edit to the List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning article was vandalism? I reverted the change because your statement didn't make sense to me. The ODA list is official from the government of the state of Oregon. The statement didn't seem to make sense to me. As another example, there are many more references than just the ODA listed in the article. The List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning article is not my page. Disputes on Wikipedia are common. There's an official dispute resolution hierachy of actions. The first step is to voice your opinion on the talk (discussion) page associated with the article. The vast majority of content disputes are resolved that way. Talk:List_of_unaccredited_institutions_of_higher_learning TallMagic 20:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I made the changes you suggested
It seems like a reasonable compromise.

I will continue to keep an eye on the article. I do hope we can continue to work together to keep this article fair and ballanced.

If I seem high strung than I am sorry. I do care passionately for issues I care about. I sense that you are the same way. Just don't take it personally. Piercetp (talk) 07:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Piercetp, I decided long ago that you're a good guy. It will take far more than a discussion over article content to sway that conclusion. I appreciate your contribution to Wikipedia. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 16:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks you for your advice
I appreciate your suggestions on how to best make the University of Phoenix page appropriately neutral and informative.17reasons (talk) 23:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

archive.org
For your future use: Archive.org often has copies of web content that is no longer available on the original source, such as this article about some diploma mills. --Orlady (talk) 18:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Good job!! Thanks, TallMagic (talk) 18:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

From a poor country boy/as you seem balanced
Dear TallMagic, First I want to feel free in my conversation with you, so if you do not insist, I would like to conceal my full introduction. I am an international reader of wikipedia. I love it. Coincidentally, I am an ex-student of Bircham International University. I am from a very poor country and also from a poor family. This university gave me the chance to study fully free of cost, even without any admission form fees. They had their investigation about my will to study and quality to avail 100% scholarship before they grant me such. Now after availing the education (not necessarily the degree) I have gained much strength to read and learn more. I am doing a better job in a better field. In fact I am involved with some good international researches. In our country, distance education is like a sin! So I had to face too much hatred too about the way I'm gaining knowledge. But at the end of the day, when my performance improved, my wounds healed to some extent. Dear sir/madam, if wikipedia is meant only for reading of the US or other very first class countries I do not have anything to say. But if you say this encyclopedia should reach every corner of the world for every one, then I must say whenever I read the article Bircham International University, my head bows down in shame in reminds me of the hatred of those that hate distance education in my country no matter which institute is providing it - Harvard or University of London. May be there are many information that describes the article very correctly for all, but not necessarily able to make equally clear impression for people from different places.

Though the current condition of the article has changed, and I have no formal objection about it. But to make wikipedia a truly international encyclopedia, shouldn't the articles be more universal, I mean it should make more or less similar impression in almost all readers? Why do I feel that it is rather a negative kind of article than a neutral one? For example, its introduction could avoid both negative and positive information. I read the discussions and I saw some references are regarded for use and some are disregarded just because of the lack of language skill!! Shouldn't such people be expelled from an international encyclopedia editing? If you deny to accept wiki as universal or international, I do not have any problem. But if you don't, then do not write an article till you have the complete information. Many might think that what they know is complete, but, humbly, this should not be an attitude of any encyclopedian. We all can seek help for more perfection, thats no shame!

Finally, I found you as a positive or at least a balanced kind of editor and thus wrote so much. Please forgive me for such a long letter. But I /we want to read wiki as an international/universal encyclopedia, not a typical English culture patterned one. I have also gained distance/online education (fully free of any tuition fees) from Harvard and Johns Hopkins. The certificates and degrees are different, but knowledges were the same from all the places. Why should we ashame education/knowledge just for degree granting capacity? Isn't it a mill like attitude too, though legal mill!!

Forgive me for concealing my name. I am weak and I might not be able to tolerate any direct blow from any diehard (respectfully) wikipedian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.112.199.51 (talk) 17:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Welcome to Wikipedia! For a general introduction to Wikipedia, you may find it interesting to visit wp:welcome. Regarding use of your name, it is perfectly okay to create an online handle. For example, Tallmagic is not my real name. Wikipedia editors are for the most part very friendly and helpful. It is strongly encouraged that we treat everyone with respect to encourage positive participation in the Wikipedia community. I believe that you'll find that Wikipedia is international and has a large number of articles in languages other than English. Although English is the largest of the branches of Wikipedia. I'm truly sorry that I only speak English. I don't think that should disqualify me from editting BIU. BIU is an article in English. I suspect what you may be referring to is my request for help in understanding some links to information provided by user:Bircham? One of the wonderful things about Wikipedia is that it is reasonable to request this kind of assistance and there's many helpful editors that are more than willing to help. TallMagic (talk) 19:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm very happy that you found high value in your studies at BIU. I'm sorry that distance learning is viewed so negatively in your country. I think that there are many people around the world that have confused diploma mills with distance learning and that is a sad tragedy. Regarding your point about doing complete research before writing an article, that is the proper way to do a paper in school, for example. That model does not always work so well where there are many people working on many articles. Before I ever did any edits on the BIU article, it already existed. I have just tried to improve it. It is okay to write negative and positive things about an article subject. Whether the information in the article is positive or negative depends on the information available in the reliable sources that are available. An important Wikipedia policy though is that whether the information is positive or negative it must be presented in a neutral tone. Welcome again to Wikipedia and thank you for your comments. TallMagic (talk) 19:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You are truly welcome. It is nice to learn the themes. May be someday I will chose you for getting wise suggestions on complicated matters. Forgive me for my harsh comments, please! In fact I have faced so much embarrassments in relation to my distance education (while everyone was very fond of the degree only) that I have forgotten about nice people like you!! May be someday we will have e-mail communication without any wiki issue, just as friends. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.112.199.51 (talk) 01:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Again
Dear Tallmagic, I have edited the Bircham article to some extent. I hope I have not done anything as blindly biased. I hope I have not spoiled your article effort!! Regards The Poor country boy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.112.199.43 (talk) 18:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

March 2008
Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Diligent Terrier and friends 01:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay DiligentTerrier, I guess I was somewhat confused by the Undo message that says to add an edit summary if the undo was not for spam or vandalism. You're correct, it is better to be more explicit. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 03:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

WVU Academic Fraud
Hello. I saw that you made a few edits to the WVU Academic Fraud/MBA Controversy. I think that this deserves its own article, since it is too complicated to adequately explain on the WVU homepage and it would not fit well in any biography pages. I have started a draft of such an article here:User:TheZachMorrisExperience/WVU. If you can make any suggestion or edits, it would be appreciated. I'd like to get this article into good shape before putting it in the mainspace and subject to AFD or other attacks. Thanks!--TheZachMorrisExperience (talk) 19:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Miscommunication
Sorry about the miscommunication regarding the blog link on the UoP article. I've really appreciated your input regarding the article thus far! Best --Eustress (talk) 01:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Eustress, thank you for your efforts. The University of Phoenix article is improved and I appreciate it. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 02:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Withdrawal notice
I will no longer be editing University of Phoenix and just wanted to inform you personally, so that my withdrawal wouldn’t be misconstrued as trying to come off “the better editor” or something. I’ve weighed the costs and benefits of pursuing my feelings regarding edits on the article and feel that it would be best for everyone if I stepped aside. I hope you understand. Best wishes for you and Wikipedia. --Eustress (talk) 18:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion templates
Hi just thought you should know that they go on the main article and not on an articles discussion page as you did with Global English UK. In addition, if you do decide to nominate it, you don't put your signature after it either, just the template. In addition, "because it's unclear what this article is even supposed to be about. There's no references.." is not a valid reason for an article to be speedily deleted. There are a lot of unreferenced articles on wikipedia. It is clear what the article is about. If you think it is non-notable then you should "prod" it really. Thanks. ♦Tangerines♦ · Talk 21:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, TallMagic (talk) 22:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

CMU Page
Just responding to your message left on the CMU site. Thank you for the info.

I have a name now and it is Viewer111. I read your response and I am a bit puzzled. I do not believe I violated the 3 reversion rule. I made the the intial change to the article and posted it. I didn't realize I needed to provide an edit summary at the time. When Orlady reverted the artilce, I saw her response. I then reverted the article one time. I goofed up on the revision and didn't add the edit sumary so I went right back in and added a summary so all could see my reasoning. Total revisions on CMU site, 1. I appreciate your advise. In the future I will make edits in smaller chunks. However, the changes did quote sources and in many cases they were the exact sources already within the article. It seems the original posters picked material that supported their point of view without either reading the entire article/report or reading it and slanting their edits in a manner that made their particular point. If I am not mistaken, that too is a violation of the Wikipedia rules on Neutral Point of View.

My list of changes are summarized below. Please tell me which ones you don't agree with:
 * 1)  CMU is Califonria State Approved.  The references to this fact are given through the State of Californai site provided.
 * 2)  Under accreditation, the verbage of the U.S.D.O.E. specifically talks about State Approved schools in the article that was already cited.  This speicific verbage was added and cited.  It did not state CMU was accredited, only added the exact wording form the USDOE website and the fact that CMU has been state approved since 1996 which can be verified at the Calironia State Websie already provided.
 * 3)   A change in label from Controversy to Controversy Before the Change of Ownership was added.  All the items in the Controversy section occured before the change of ownership of PWU-CA/CMU as referenced by the Paul Thacker article.  If we want to state all the controversy of the University, it is fair to put things in a factual context.
 * 4)  Information on GOA Report was expanded.  The exact same references quoted were cited.  The GAO report defined their terms of what was a diploma mill and what was an unaccredited school within the report. Earlier contributors simply used the name of the report to draw a conclusion that when is taken in it's complete context, is incorrect.  PWU-CA was a California State Approved school at the time.  So was one of the other schools, California Coast University.  Wikipedia contributors made the same broad sweeping conclusion on CCU at the time and persited even after CCU gained national accreditation. It looks like those Wikipedia contributors violoted the nutral point of view rule in this case as well.
 * 5)  A similar item happened in the previous quote about the govenment of Sweeden cite.  The information in the article is not only wrong, but seemingly bias.  If you review the article, as my revision states, PWU-CA is not the subject of the article and its inflamitory title at all.  The only reference to PWU-CA is the picture of its website page as of 2005 with the warning don't assume a school is accredited simply because it has a .edu in its title.  Please review the report and see if PWU-CA name appears anywhere else in the report.  It does not.
 * 6)  The reference to the KVOA article is still cited.  However, since the KVOA team call PWU-CA a diploma mill in their article referencing the GOA report, and the GAO Report does not make such a distinction, this is incorrect information about the school.  It should either be ammended or removed in this regard.
 * 7)  A disclaimer to the mention of Barry McSweeny reference is added to the site. As you know there were two separate PWU's from 1988 until 2006.  The warning at the top of the edit page attests to this fact.  Earlier contributors assumed that anyone who had a PWU degree was from the California school.  That is not a verifable fact.  I have access to the student records at CMU and Mr. McSweeny never was a student of PWU California.  He may have been a PWU Hawaii graduate.  If Wikipedia will not accept the records from PWU California as verification of this fact then certainly Wikipedia has rules to take off the entire reference if there is doubt and it cannot be confirmed as to which PWU was being referenced.
 * 8)  The unamaed graduate from Austrailia that was removed and is a ditto to the explaination in items 7.
 * 9)  The names of alumni not found in the PWU-CA/CMU database were removed due to the explanation in item 7 above.

In closing, it its not my intent to be troublesome or generate anymore animostiy over this site than has been shown in the past. I have read many of the behind the scenes correspondence on this page. I think that it is clear to see most contributors had a very definite point of view on this page as evidenced by actions in locking the site for months by Brad Patrick.

Every item that was changed is cited and hopefully neutral in nature. It may not appear neurtral to some because of the "my minds made up, don't confuse me with conflicting facts" syndrome. If I have not been neutral, then change those items. That is not my intent. I am only trying to make sure correct, unbias information is on the site.

I certainly expect to be allowed to make my edits in the near future. The fact that the website was locked due to "vandalism" only goes to show that whomever is "guarding" this site may have an agenda that is not in keeping with the Wikipedia rules. I hope this is not the case, and that the site is opened back up. I don't mind playing by the rules, but I want a level playing field where noone is given speacial treatment or privledges.

I look forward to your comments.

Viewer111 (talk) 16:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Welcome to Wikipedia Viewer111. I sincerely appreciate your desire to improve the CMU article. I hope that you decide you like the place and decide to contribute to many other articles that might interest you. Wikipedia is generally a very friendly place. I believe it fosters a positive team atmosphere. It is expected that team members can have different point of view and even disagreements. These can usually be worked through when the wp:Assume_good_faith guideline is followed by the team members. This is very important to remember when dealing with one's team members on Wikipedia. I firmly believe that the actions of Orlady and Swatjester were taken because of their firm belief in Wikipedia and our policies and guidelines.TallMagic (talk) 17:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It appears that you have some inside information regarding CMU. You'll need to be careful to keep separate wp:reliable_source information from your inside information. Wikipedia must be based on wp:verifiable information from wp:reliable_sources. It can't be based on any other kind of information. Perhaps you could help me out on a personal curiosity though? I understand that CMU has applied for accreditation. I was wondering if you happened to know how that process was progressing? TallMagic (talk) 17:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Still working on my more detailed response. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 17:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

TallMagic

Thank you for the quick response. I expect to spend alot of time on Wikipedia on this and other articles in the future. It takes a bit to get used to the standard operating procedure, but I think I'm getting the hang of it. It's quite fun and exciting.

I think you will find upon your review that all of my edits are well sourced and verifiable. Those of past students of the generic PWU need to be examined however for reasons I stated earlier. The only item I didn't address in my earlier response, was the deletion of all sentences that concern PWU Hawaii. That school has it's own site and those references should be addressed in that forum via links.

I didn't mean to insinuate that Orlady had any imporper motives. Her references are correct. When I reset my changes I added the explaination that I didn't know I need before Orlady's reset. I needed to learned the ropes. I felt that if contributors would have looked at the changes and verified the resources that were linked to the changes, the site would have not been set back.

I am just curious and concerned that the site was locked for Vandalism when according to Wikipedia rules on Vandalism are very clear and percise but were not followed. This seemingly is an extreme action and is suppose to require a warning to the alleged first violator (me). The very nature of the changes that were made in no way approach Wikipedia's definition of the act of Vandalism. I explained the nature of the changes when doing my one and only reset. They were not vandalism.

I am hard pressed to see any violations of any Wikipedia policy in my actions. If I violated the 3 revision rule, how? You can count the revisions in history. There was one. If you can identify some policies I have violoated, I will be happy to listen and modify my actions immediately to be in compliance.

To answer your question about CMU. As you know, a college in the accredition process is precluded from saying anything about the matter. A thought that might help you would be to re-read the Paul Thacker article from 2006. He addresses this issue accurately in his article.

I await your more detailed response. Warmest Regards, Viewer111 (talk) 19:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Archive.org
Unfortunately, they don't archive every page on the web. Apparently the page you asked about is one they missed... --Orlady (talk) 22:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Wallis
It was deleted because nothing in it suggested importance or notability. It looked like a standard issue degree mill of no import. Is there something I missed that lends this particular degree mill some notability? If you tell me what it is, I'll undelete the article so you can add it to the article. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Single objection is for PROD, actually - give me a citation for one of the notable and non-trivial mentions, though, and I'll go undelete. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Our friends from American Central University
Seem to be expanding their campaign. If you revert changes to American Central University you might want to check the contributions to see if they hit anything else. Good day. CosmicPenguin (Talk) 03:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * They should seek out mental health therapy for those apparent delusions of grandeur, e.g., fondly referred to as Dr. Khan. TallMagic (talk) 08:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Disputed UPX undo and edits
Thank you for reviewing the work on this page. I'm going to bring the changes to the discussion page. I probably should have done that to begin with, but it didn't look like the page has seem much editing for several months. For the record, the first sentence under Criticisms is not a warp of reality, but it should and can be better supported.

Thank you --Caernarvon (talk) 15:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the note. The warping of reality comment was referring to warping the statements of the available references to say the exact opposite of what the references actually said. I stand by that edit statement. I do want to sincerely thank you though for your improvments to the UPX article. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 20:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You are, of course, welcome - though it seems you contribute far more than I, in general. Also, I would like to take this opportunity to invite an increased level of input. I know it takes considerable time, but you add significant insight to the UPX discussion. --Caernarvon (talk) 15:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * If you find the time, I would appreciate it if you would weigh in on the UPX talk page Criticism section dispute. We're actually pretty close to compromise - Mysteryquest would like the compromise wording to be under Criticism, I think that we'll be heading back in the direction of wp:undue that we just got away from. I would prefer that it be located under Academics. It seems like Mike is supportive of my position, but I wanted you to note that we were coming to a close on this discussion and give you a chance to add your thoughts.  Thanks for your input! --Caernarvon (talk) 04:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Discussions at the UPX website are warming up again. I'd love to invite you to poke your head in to check what's going on - you're knowledgeable and neutral viewpoint are highly welcome.  --136.174.187.10 (talk) 15:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

James Kirk Diploma Mills
Hi, TallMagic. You indicated "see talk" on your last revert of my article, but I couldn't find your entry on my talk page. One of the difficulties of this particular topic is that after a decade, most proof sources are not existant, or exist on the web as opinion pages or blogs. I was hoping to include the one brick court reference as it is from a respected source (London Legal opinion website, http://www.onebrickcourt.com/about.asp), well researched, and helps to substantiate 3 important points that may bring fair balance to this article.

(1) Legality: LaSalle was legally registered as a 501(c) not-for-profit corporation licensed through the State of Louisiana under the title "World Christian Church". (John Bear notes this in his summary, and the 501c(3) status of LaSalle opened Kirk to prosecution by federal authorities)

(2) Quality of coursework: According to the central findings of the court case, Paul McKenna v MGN Ltd [7/28/2006] (and the reason damages were granted to the plaintiff, a graduate of LaSalle), LaSalle did not grant degrees simply in return for a cash payment (the truest definition of a "diploma mill"), students continued in some cases for several years, and although LaSalle granted limited credits for "life-learning", the institution required students to purchase textbooks and submit essays for grading. According to the findings of the court, LaSalle's "Masters" and "Doctorate" programs typically required the writing of a Thesis or Dissertation (although it is arguable how "good" many of these were). In McKenna's case, he was also permitted to do a "project" of recorded counseling tapes, which he submitted to LaSalle. Also according to the findings of the court, many of the students at LaSalle University were required (or chose to use) local Adjunct Faculty (Ph.D.'s from accredited institutions) to serve as their professor for coursework as well as advisor for Dissertations, Doctoral Projects or Thesis.

(3) The downfall of Lasalle, was that as a 501c(3), LaSalle University decided to create a fraudulent entity, the "Council on Postsecondary Christian Education," (COPCE) to illegally serve as its own accreditation body. LaSalle deceived students as well as employers (many employers requested proof of accreditation as a prerequisite to subsidizing education of employees, and students received a copy of the COPCE certification papers if they asked for proof of the university's accreditation). It was this fact that brought the institution down and resulted in the prosecution of Kirk, not because he was running a "diploma mill". This is also substantiated by the court case. LaSalle certainly was not accredited, but as Judge Eady noted in his legal findings "it was not a prerequisite for granting degrees in the US that a university should be accredited". (http://www.onebrickcourt.com/cases_files/68EWHC1996.pdf) This is apparently not true in all states however, Texas being a notable exception and the location of one of the adverse findings against a LaSalle student noted in Orlady's (and others) original version of this article.

The way the article reads in your previous reversion, it paints the students with the same broad brush that paints Kirk. I believe that the Paul McKenna case must be included to show that the students of LaSalle were largely victims of this deception, not participants in it. Additionally, presenting 2 negative findings and ignoring one positive finding is not fair balance. I encourage you to let my edits stand. Apparent Logic (talk) 00:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Tall Magic: Thanks for pointing out the use of the article discussion page versus user talk. All the time I have been contributing on Wikipedia I have overlooked that resource. Thanks also for moving the comments here to the appropriate location. 24.106.226.6 (talk) 03:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

TallMagic - you don't tell us HOW to leave messages for you. So, I am doing it by editing this page!
I added some lines about Breyer State University's program based on my own personal experience. I did site reliable references. Then why do you keep deleting them? We should present both sides of the story to be fair to Breyer State University. Thanks Kannan38 (talk) 21:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)kannan3821:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of International American University
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article International American University, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process
 * non-notable diploma-mill, seemingly no 3rd party rs

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached.

PS just notifying you because you seemed to know the subject area.  Misarxist  09:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Message from Cugraduate
This user is not interested in fairness or honesty. There is a total lack of integity at this site due to biased troglodytes with an agenda to persue only negative views! signed cugraduate —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.255.157.35 (talk) 18:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I have responded to your comment on talk:Canterbury University (Seychelles). TallMagic (talk) 20:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Message from Anon
TallMagic what alledged diploma mills are approved by carribean nation legislatures? The reason I ask because I plan to attend a school there through distance learning and just wanted to make sure it wasn't a alledged diploma mill. Thank You —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.103.158.150 (talk • contribs) 03:15, 18 March 2009


 * Welcome to Wikipedia, first here's some housekeeping type suggestions. Please add new threads to talk pages to the end of the talk page and don't forget to to sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~ ) at the end of your comment. Second, I do have an opinion on your question. It is very wise of you to be concerned about such things. It is your money, your time, and potentially your reputation on the line if you pick the wrong school. This is the wrong forum to share my opinion with you. Instead I respectfully suggest that you ask the same question in what I would consider a proper forum. Two examples where very knowledgeable, friendly and helpful people post on these type questions are http://www.degreeinfo.com or http://www.degreediscussion.com I sincerely wish you the best and encourage you to complete your research to make sure that you don't make a big mistake. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 04:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

FYI
Since you posted on it before it was "ready" to go, I think it appropriate to let you know that my RFA is finally "live". --Orlady (talk) 15:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

RfA Orlady, your comment there
Hey TallMagic,

I am very sorry if my comment in Orlady's RfA left you feeling insulted and if it left you with the impression that I wanted to drag your good name through the mud! That was not at all my intention and that was not the point I was trying to make. If you don't mind, read my question (Q18) at the RfA again (please really read it) and you will see that I was not pointing fingers at the premature voters at all, not at you and not the other voter. I had that RfA in preparation on my watchlist, probably just as you had. If you refer to this revision you see that the vote count is (2/0/0) on March 3 and it is mentioned there that the discussion is going to end at Mar 5. That looked to me like the RfA was live and I assume you had the same impression when you added your vote there. Then I added my vote to that topic, voting prematurely myself, as you will notice.

Orlady could have informed the premature voters that it was not due time yet to leave an opinion. Or she could have just removed the votes. The criticism I had, was pointed at Orlady who could have done better to not let premature votes accumulate on the RfA in preparation. I did not want to drop names and I want to say sorry to the other premature voter too. I hope the other user reads it here and accepts my apology. My question was intended to find out Orlady's position on that issue.

If I could convince you that my question was not intended to insult you and you are willing to accept my apology for not making this clear enough, would you mind to replace the "silly" in your comment by some other word? How about "a jerk"? I could accept that and live with that expression much better than being called "silly".

Take care and happy editing, doxTxob \ talk 22:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

California Miramar University
TallMagic;

As you know I disagreed with your decision not to post the verifiable information concerning CMU as a candidate for accreditation on the main CMU article. Of course that is your right as it is mine to feel that that decision was based on your opinion and not on the facts that were present on the DETC site. My point to the Wikipedia powers was to lift the "semi-protection" on the article. I stand by that position. I did not mention you by name, however, if we are going to edit the article according to the facts, it should be by all the facts. Despite our differences on my opinion and reasoning for the removal of the semi-protection of this article, I would like to thank you for all your help. Angelone7749 (talk) 21:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Angelone, thank you for sharing your opinion. In the future please start new threads at the bottom of the talk pages. It is best to do this by starting a new section on the bottom of the talk page. I was not being defensive. I understand that you didn't mention my name. I really wouldn't care if you had mentioned my name. The point is that it is an invalid argument to say that an editor is to blame because they didn't make an edit on an article. That is not how Wikipedia works. It is a fact that such a weak argument would be trying to place blame on the many thousands of Wikipedians that have not fixed the article. If in fact the article is biased it is because either editors made edits that made it biased or there have been changes in the subject of the article that have fundamentally changed and the article needs to be updated to accurately reflect those changes. If you continue trying to hold the view that a Wikipedian can be blamed for edits that they didn't make then you will either be driven totally crazy or you will have to cease editting Wikipedia. :-) BTW Angelone, I did in fact make the edit that you "accused" me of not making. :-) Regards, TallMagic (talk) 05:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I am curious about your reasons from removing Marcus Einfeld from the list of "notable" graduates. Is there some policy reasons for this? If not I can't really understand your decision to remove him. Afterwriting (talk) 05:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Afterwriting, please see my note on Talk:California_Miramar_University. I try to explain why I removed him. I also tried to explain that I was on the fence about it and that it would be fine to add him back in if it were mentioned that in one source it says that CMU didn't find him in the records. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 15:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your response. I now see that there is some unclarity about his status.  Perhaps some sort of note might suffice.  It doesn't have any importance for me either way, however.  Afterwriting (talk) 10:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your Revert here
Hey, just writing to politely ask, why you reverted this without posting on my talk page that you have reverted the edit? as required by here: Revert_only_when_necessary Or why you did not Undo this edit as per: WP:STATUSQUO as this wasn't vandalism

I have found a couple of references for the lack of accreditation for Coral Ridge Baptist University, although I still haven't figured out how to reference properly, or whether they count as reliable sources


 * http://themakingofauniversity.blogspot.com/2009/06/behold-coral-ridge-baptist-university.html
 * http://www.tjed.org/contributors

Thanks in Advance, Captain n00dle T/C 14:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I have found another reference here: http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2008/05/a-thomas-jefferson-education/ Captain n00dle T/C 14:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

We're all in this together
Hi, "TM." It's nice to hear from you, but there's really no need to thank me for my efforts at Canterbury. It's on my watchlist, too, and I'm frequently aware of your efforts to revert damage to plenty of other articles that we are both watching. It's good to remember that none of us is alone around here.... --Orlady (talk) 03:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The Warnborough Gang
I've responded at Talk:Warnborough_College. I'll be happy to discuss any concerns you have about the article or my edits there and work together to improve the article and its accuracy.Fladrif (talk) 21:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

American University Accreditation Council?
Hi. American University Accreditation Council (see website) is a new discovery for me. I haven't found them on any of the lists of unrecognized accreditors yet, but it's clear that they aren't recognized. Do you have anything about them?

One of the schools that claims accreditation by this outfit is University of Northern Virginia -- another institution, apparently unaccredited, that was new to me. --Orlady (talk) 21:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't recall anything on either one. I'll look into it. Thank you for the "heads up". Regards, TallMagic (talk) 16:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I used Google scholar and archive searches on both topics and didn't find anything on UNVA that wasn't already in the article. Google came up with zilch on The accreditation council. My personal opinion is that UNVA is a school that appears to offer serious instruction. At the same time it may be substandard based on the fact that they lost accreditation from the ACICS. They may also operate on the fringe based on listing by the bogus accreditor and I can't really agree with the idea of a serious academic institution spreading out into multiple campuses around the world without first establishing solid accreditation credentials. I do recall now that an acquaintance did work at UNVA for a short while early in its history but bailed when they failed to aggressively pursue accreditation. TallMagic (talk) 18:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for supplying the second set of eyes. --Orlady (talk) 19:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Edwin Muñiz
Hello TallMagic, I believe that this is the first time that I have the pleasure of interacting with you. I first read about Muñiz in "Tras las Huellas de Nuestro Paso", by: Ildelfonso Lopez, Pg. 25, Publisher: AEELA, 1998, which is a publication of the Government of Puerto Rico honoring Puerto Ricans who have made great accomplishments. I told myself that this person deserves an article, plus "Boricuazo, Tu rgullo Nacional"; By: Jesus mar Rivera; Section: Medicinas; Published 2008 by Horizonte Impresores; ISBN;978-1-60530-501-1 placed him among the top five scientists. Now, let me tell you even though I wrote the article I still had some reservations because I once wrote about a certain "Marlo Carbia" who had more reliable verifiable sources then you can imagine, and I discovered that she turned out to be a fake. Soon enough, some family members of Muñiz began to edit and I began to revert. However, when I found out that the edits were made by family members, I requested some proof such as a photo which could be uploaded to the article within Wiki policy and it was provided. That is how I obtained the information for the article. The only thing that I don't know are the circumstances under which he obtained his titles, that is something his family will have to deal with. Take care Tony the Marine (talk) 03:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the note. I admit that I'm rather surprised that someone would want such "questionable" academic credentials publicized, especially alongside some real academic credentials. St. Luke is very questionable (some would say diploma mill) and I don't believe that Clayton University ever offered PhD's. My concern is that without proper sources, Wikipedia could be vulnerable to publishing lies about a living person. For example say that someone reads his Wikipedia article and then calls him an academic fraud. He could then simply claim that it is lies that Tony the Marine put into his Wikipedia article. I don't know if it really matters though if his notability doesn't rise to the necessary level for Wikipedia. That coupled with the lack of verifiable sources indicates to me that unfortunately the article should probably be deleted. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 05:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I haven't been too active in Wikipedia today, that is why I just read your message here. You make perfect sense. I'm not worried about the subjects family, however since they (User talk:Physioed1) already know what is going on, let's give them at least a couple of weeks to provide sources (at least some reliable newspaper or magazine article) to further prove the subjects notability before taking further any action. How does that sound to you? Tony the Marine (talk) 04:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * How long ago were they asked for some reliable sources? I would think that if the sources were known then, they could be quickly provided? Regards, TallMagic (talk) 00:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I figure that they must have read about the "notability" issue in the articles talk page, therefore I think that you should give them whatever time you consider reasonable to dig up whatever they can. If they don't provide any info. and sources then, I will not will not contest any decision or action which you take. I trust your judgement. Tony the Marine (talk) 02:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * That seems reasonable. I do have a hopefully helpful suggestion. There sometimes is a bit of a gap between people that understand Wikipedia policies and guidelines like we do and people that don't. I assume that User talk:Physioed1 falls more into the later group. So, my suggestion is to make sure that there's a reasonable appreciation for the possibility of the article being deleted. This could be done perhaps by a simple comment on your part since I think it is fair to assume that Physioed1 trusts your opinion more than anyone elses. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 02:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

John Bear
Ref "John Bear" page.

To call someone an "authority" is POV.

It is not sourced either. Degreeoftruth (talk)


 * It is a POV but it is a POV supported by dozens of reliable sources in this case. That means it belongs in the article. As a matter of fact it must be in the article because it is what justifies a Wikipedia article in this case. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 06:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I see from your edits on the John Bear page that you are a fan of this man. He is a writer. He is not an authority on anything. It seems that claims made in articles are information that have been regurgetated from what has been sources on wikipedia itself.

The POV of a journalist does not make someone an AUTHORITY.

As for "dozens of sources" claiming he is. I have yet to see them. I have found plenty of places where he is referred to as a scammer and a cheat who has been involved with several degree-mills in the past.

There are also claims that he was an informant to the FBI who ratted out his former business partners. This is POV. So cannot be added. Degreeoftruth (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC).

I am also concerned about Mr Bear's own website being used as a credible source of information. Since when is information on a personal website considered credible? Degreeoftruth (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC).

I don't want this to be an edit war. I await your comments —Preceding unsigned comment added by Degreeoftruth (talk • contribs) 18:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Degreeoftruth, Please try to remember to sign your comments on talk pages. The proper place to discuss the improvement of Wikipedia articles is on the article talk page. In this case that would be Talk:John_Bear. Please see my comments there. TallMagic (talk) 19:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Books
If it's going to survive without challenge, the Books section of the John Bear article needs publication details -- like ISBN numbers -- for verifiability. Google-searching the title usually will pull up publication details from websites like Amazon, Barnes&Noble, and Alibris. For example, I just added publication details for one book. However, I wasn't able to find any info on another of the titles: "The World's Worst Maxims". --Orlady (talk) 03:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll try looking up some. Thank you, TallMagic (talk) 03:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Edwin Muñiz pt.2
I need your e-mail (you can post it on my "talk Page", there is a newspaper article which definitely makes reference to his notability which I would like to share with you. The subject's family will soon also provide the following:


 * 1. Copy of Dads PhD Degree in Physiology (Dissertation: "Cardiovascular Deconditioning Due to Zero Degree Gravity")
 * 2. Copy of the National Directory of Post Secondary Institutions, Volume 1, Published by the United States Department of Education. Showing Clayton University as Fully accredited.
 * 3. The College Board Handbook 1988-1989 (Period of Graduation) Showing Clayton University as fully accredited
 * 4. Pettersons "Higher Education Directory" 1988, showing all accredited post secondary institutions. Included is Clayton University as fully accredited.
 * 5. Hep 89 Higher Education Directory showing all accredited programs (1989). Clayton University included, fully accredited.
 * 6. Petersons Four Year Colleges, 1989, Accurate Guide to all Accredited Colleges and Universities; Clayton University Included.

However, the newspaper article is the a main key which I want you to check out. Tony the Marine (talk) 23:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I never said that Clayton University was unaccredited. Proving some undisputed fact doesn't seem very convincing? I believe that all I've said about Clayton University is that they didn't offer PhD degrees. The issue about Clayton is that it didn't offer PhD degrees in the year that the degree is claimed. If we get any documentation that says otherwise then that would seem to be an incredible claim that requires incredible sources to support it. I am interested in seeing the newspaper article that you refer to. I've responded on your talk page, as you requested. TallMagic (talk) 23:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Re:Thank you
You're welcome. It was the right thing to do. Tony the Marine (talk) 21:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

CPU discussion
I was just reading the discussion about Columbia Pacific University. I haver interest in this because I am investigating a person who is making decisions concerning children who has a degree from CPU. Do you know how I would find out if Washington State has ever recognized degrees from CPU? Meshmash (talk) 18:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Meshmash, welcome to Wikipedia. The purpose of Wikipedia talk pages is to discuss improving the Wikipedia encyclopedia. May I respecfully suggest that the proper place to ask your most excellent question would be one of the distance learning forums? I think you would get some excellent responses to you query on either http://www.degreeinfo.com or http://www.degreediscussion.com which are general distance learning discussion forums unrelated to Wikipedia. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 21:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Posting messages on user talk pages
Just an FYI: You need not assume good faith on their first warning (as you did here) when the user has a record of multiple edits that clearly show an other-than-good-faith intent. Level 2 is just fine in cases like that. I gave that user their second warning, and I debated between a level 3 and 4im (I chose the latter). --Orlady (talk) 14:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I knew which edit you were talking about without even looking. :-) It was such a strange bit of vandelism compared to the normal stuff I see, I thought perhaps the guy was just "experimenting". Anyway, I find myself agreeing with you, as always. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 18:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Resource of Unaccredited School - check February 28, 1999 Chicago Tribune & http://www.ope.ed.gov/accreditation/
I found articles reporting The American Conservatory of Music's diploma mill. This is the resource quote from Chicago Tribune, February 28, 1999. Please link the resource if you had time:

____ SCHOOL'S DEGREES BOGUS, STATE SAYS - MUSIC STUDENTS PAY HIGH TUITION TO EARN UNUSABLE DIPLOMAS -- Chicago Tribune-February 28, 1999 Author: Cindy Schreuder and Patrice M. Jones, Tribune Staff Writers. ...(I've snipped what appears to be a complete copy of the article. TallMagic (talk) 18:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC))...

"They are not supposed to give out degrees anymore," Perkins said. "They are not supposed to say they are accredited. They shouldn't say they are charitable. "Are they probably going to violate those things? Knowing these folks, I wouldn't be surprised. But slowly but surely, we are trying to close the gap." PHOTOS 2 PHOTO (color): Oksana Goncharenko practices at the beleaguered American Conservatory of Music in Chicago. Most recognized music schools will not accept ``credits'' earned there. Tribune photo by Wes Pope. PHOTO: Richard Schulze (from right), his wife, Theodora, and their son, Otto, discuss the problems they are having operating the American Conservatory of Music, a downtown Chicago school at the center of a controversy involving the Illinois Board of Higher Education and attorney general's office. Tribune photo by Wes Pope. Edition: CHICAGOLAND FINAL Section: NEWS Page: 16 Index Terms: MUSIC BUSINESS CHICAGO EDUCATION STATE Record Number: CTR9902280223 Copyright 1999, Chicago Tribune

If you had time to research, Check ACM's accreditation status here by yourself. Just enter the school name "The American Conservatory of Music." It's easy:

http://www.ope.ed.gov/accreditation/

The answer is "There are no institutions that met your criteria."

In 2005, the US Department of Education launched www.ope.ed.gov/accreditation to combat the spread of fraudulent degrees. A number of states have passed bills restricting the ability of organisations to award degrees without accreditation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Masong225 (talk • contribs) 16:52, 16 December 2009

Hi, Tallmagic, Give me the instruction to put the reference. I don't know how to do it. Send me the link of instruction. Thanks Masong225 19:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Masong225 (talk • contribs)


 * Hi Masong225, I'm pleased that you're interested in improving Wikipedia. I did take a quick peek at your editting pattern. I have a concern that it may contain some Tendentious_editing. Please read the Tendentious_editing article and convince yourself that you don't fall into that category. You can learn the proper method of citing references by looking at examples in wp:feature articles or by reading the following article Citing_sources. Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope that you like the place and decide to stay. TallMagic (talk) 21:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tallmagic I read the guidelines. But I felt Wikipedia has been wrong about the sham school. Here's the link you need to read (though you have to join in the membership to read the whole articles):

http://www.highbeam.com/Search.aspx?q=RAYMOND+R.+COFFEY++american+conservatory

The author is Raymond Coffey who won 1963 National Headliners Club award for civil rights reporting.

http://reportingcivilrights.loa.org/authors/bio.jsp?authorId=10

Wikipedia past text written for the American Conservaotry of Music is mostly biased and inaccurate ("internationally accredited," etc). There are a lot of victims but it's never mentioned in the previous Wikipedia text. What is worse, Schulze family has fraud crime histories. Wikipedia should learn the history of ACM. After collectiong & reseraching, as you say, someone should write the section objectively.

Here's quotation. Have you read this story at the past Wikipedia ACM section? (Could you explain, who not?):

____ SCHOOL'S DEGREES BOGUS, STATE SAYS - MUSIC STUDENTS PAY HIGH TUITION TO EARN UNUSABLE DIPLOMAS -- Chicago Tribune-February 28, 1999 Author: Cindy Schreuder and Patrice M. Jones, Tribune Staff Writers. QUOTATION: The court has barred the Schulzes even from using the American Conservatory of Music name--a name that is a century old and world-renowned and allowed the Schulzes to attract students from all over the globe. "Many unsuspecting students have paid high tuition for what are essentially meaningless degrees granted by one after another of the corporate entities created by the Schulzes," said Marcia Langsjoen, assistant director for academic affairs at the Illinois Board of Higher Education. The little-publicized case of the conservatory--which in its original incarnation was founded in 1886 and produced Pulitzer Prize winners and other acclaimed artists--has frustrated and baffled state officials. It has dragged on since the early 1990s, involving the Illinois Board of Higher Education and two arms of the attorney general's office, one agency going after the bogus degrees, the other attempting to stop the Schulzes from capitalizing on the American Conservatory's name. Students, some of whom have paid more than $22,000 a year for tuition and expenses they thought would lead to a degree, may have to start over someplace else. Most recognized music schools will not accept "credits" earned at the conservatory. What's more, foreign students on student visas may be forced to go home if they are not attending a state-approved institution (END OF QUOTATION)

Regarding Schulze crime example:

QUOTATION from Chicago Sun-Times-April 5, 1996Author: Raymond R. Coffey ………….. The principal evidence cited in Ryan's suit relates to Schulze's involvement in two investor fraud cases in Florida and Nevada. In Florida, he pleaded no contest to 62 charges, including grand theft, in a case in which investors were taken for about $28 million. Schulze was sentenced to 20 years of probation and ordered to make restitution of $350,000. In Nevada, in a suit brought by the U.S. Commodities Futures Trading Commission and involving about $12 million in investor losses on a gold bullion scheme, a court issued a permanent injunction against Schulze and ordered him to pay back $800,000. He has so far paid back nothing and last year was jailed for three days for contempt of court………. (END of QUOTATION)

Please help the public with the truth thru Wikipedia. Most people had copied & pasted from ACM slippery website (that's the problem - pretty biased). I have collected articles (more than 15) about ACM but, whether you liked them or not, they are all about Schulze fraud history (nothing good written!). Let me know any additional articles if you found any. A Let me know what you think.

Masong225 11:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Masong225 (talk • contribs)


 * Hi Masong225, Please try to understand, Wikipedia is made up of volunteers. There are over 3 million articles in the English speaking Wikipedia. (be patient) I appreciate your enthusiasm for this one article. Afterall the 3 million articles must be dealt with one at a time. (there's unlimited work to get done here) As is the case for all Wikipedians, I have a life outside Wikipedia and I can't dedicate myself to Wikipedia. For starters, please sign your comments added to talk pages. (The tilde character is usually the shift character on the key to the left of the 1 key.) The purpose of user talk pages are to discuss Wikipedia issues that don't involve general article improvements. Article improvements should be discussed on the article talk pages. When communicating on a talk page, try to keep it shorter. Just a paragraph or two. Your communications will work much better. Please stop using a string of equal characters, "=", as dividers. Wikipedia thinks that you're creating new section headers. (See Talk_page_guidelines for more detail) Regards, TallMagic (talk) 15:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Tallmagic, I reported the incidents to FBI,etc - including misinformation of Wiki. Thanks,

Masong225 20:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Masong225 (talk • contribs)

Looking forward to more contributions
I can see you contributed to "Contracts" article. If you have some spare time would you like to contribute to http://www.wikilawschool.org It is a non-profit law school study guide resource for law school students. Looking forward to your help! Thanks for kind consideration.119.202.38.234 (talk) 08:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

WAUC and archive.org
Glad to see that you put the archive.org links in place. I tried to find them earlier today, but I couldn't access archive.org (probably a temporary disturbance in "the force" or something). Nice work. --Orlady (talk) 18:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

WIU
I had a go at it... --Orlady (talk) 20:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Strange that I'd get a warning from you on my Talk page, but then my edits to Washington International University would be reverted by Orlady. Your "original research tag-team" of TallMagic and Orlady is really active!  Your note to me was rather condescending, considering the fact that most of my substantive edits do indeed contain citations to reliable sources.  Going forward, treat me as a fellow editor, and not as someone who needs your lessons.  If you can't bring yourself to engage with me that way, I won't hesitate to bring this to Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. - CRedit 1234 (talk) 18:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Not strange at all, CRedit. Welcome again to Wikipedia. Let me assure you that my goal (and I'm sure Orlady's goal) is simply to make the best Wikipedia encyclopedia that I can. I appreciate your help in that regard. If you feel that you'd like to report me (and/or Orlady) to the Adminstrator's noticeboard then please do so. My experience is that the more editors involved on an article, generally the greater improvements made to that article. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 18:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

RS noticeboard
I've brought up the issue on using archived pages from the Oregon database at the RS Noticeboard. Cla68 (talk) 23:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The future
Please excuse my jumping into the debate (I commented at WP:COIN and read WP:ANI). I gather that you are used to fighting doggedly with completely unethical people (diploma mill promoters), but you must accept that whereas there will be some people like that here, the vast majority of those speaking at COIN and ANI are the exact opposite. Please work harder to understand what is being explained to you because even Atama has declared "My patience with TallMagic is exhausted". The next step is up to you: agree to retire the other account (never use it again), and stop poking Cla68 (stop referring to actions that have already been discussed). If after a few days have elapsed, anyone makes a new outing attempt, please ask for assistance at User talk:Atama. The only reason I am going to the trouble of making this long comment is that I hate people using Wikipedia to promote stuff like diploma mills and I hope that you continue to work (within Wikipedia's policies like WP:V and WP:NPOV) to oppose the spammer whitewashing. However, you show no sign of understanding the advice being given to you on ANI and it is an historical fact that an editor who does not receive the message will be encouraged to leave. If you want to respond, feel free to do so here, but really I suggest that you do nothing (that is, drop the whole matter), although it would help if somewhere you would clearly state that you are retiring the other account. Johnuniq (talk) 02:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you but this account is really quite useless for editting thanks to Cla68 and so this will be the account that will retire after the ANI and I will no longer edit Wikipedia except perhaps a rare edit on one talk page. I agree with you that Wikipedia is generally made up of very good people but I'm convinced that Cla68 is not one of those. It is very disappointing to me that he has been allowed to lead this most successful campaign against me. TallMagic (talk) 02:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Honestly, I hate diploma mills too. That's my personal POV laid out for you. In the past, before I ever got involved with Wikipedia, I used to volunteer online to help tutor people trying to get certifications (particularly A+ and Network+ certification from CompTIA). Diploma mills cheapen the credentials earned by people who legitimately receive such certifications. I have to set aside my own biases though, and consider Wikipedia's policies. That's my obligation as an admin. As much as I'd like to support your efforts, I can't just sit quiet while you continue to operate multiple accounts in opposition to WP:SOCK. I still don't understand why you have to use the old account, doing so belies any claims you have about wanting to preserve your privacy. It's like going into the Witness Protection Program but insisting that you still want to wear a T-shirt with your real name on it. After days of trying to help you, and getting no cooperation from you, or even answers, I feel like I've been deceived or at least given the run-around. Let me assure you that if you retired your old account and Cla68 kept trying to push the COI issue, he'd be blocked. The fact that he may have a point about the multiple accounts is what has kept me from taking action against him.


 * At this point, I'm not going to block or otherwise sanction either of you. I see misbehavior from both of you, but not enough to justify anything. If you choose to not do anything else in this matter, neither will I. I guess this whole thing can drop and hopefully be forgotten. If you continue to use the old account, though, don't be shocked if you run into grief again sometime in the future, if not from me, someone else. --  At am a  頭 19:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * This account is retired. One of us must be misunderstanding the privacy paragraph of wp:SOCK. Diploma mills make money for their owners. These are generally people with weak ethics and morals in the first place. When Wikipedia starts cutting into their profits they can get very interested and determined in such a problem. Believe me that Wikipedia most definitely does cut into their profits. Cla68 has put me in the crosshairs of their retaliation by successfully outing this account. As I said to you in email I will not jeopardize my family just for the sake of editting Wikipedia. This is what these people understand and so it is why it is an excellent financial return for them to harass people into leaving them alone and allowing them to increase their profits. I don't like it but one must sometimes bow to reasonable priorities. They can afford to and sometimes even do hire people in other countries to hassle people over the internet for them. (Note: just to be clear, I don't think any involved editors here are part of this type thing.) The point is that real world harassment is a real reasonable outcome. You said you didn't believe me that it is ill advised to edit these type articles with a real name attached but it's true, I learned the hard way. I'd provide you more links if I thought it would do any good. So explain to me how I can possibly ever use this account again to edit these type of articles under those circumstances? In any case, Atama, my view is that you were Cla68's unwitting tool. That nonsense about demanding I admit to my real name online while not responding to my emails was not the proper way to handle a victim that is being outed by a determined editor with lots of Wiki-experience. Another mistake I made was not going to JzG, I know that he appreciates the meaning of the wp:OUTING policy much better than any of the other involved admins. I am no longer a Wikipedian. Sincerely, TallMagic (talk) 21:07, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't want you to admit to your real name, and I've never asked you to. Good grief, no. I wouldn't do that myself either. My personal advice to you, one human being to another, and one person with a family to another, is to abandon this account and start up another one clean if you feel that this one is now compromised. That's allowed and it's especially allowed in situations like yours. But you do have to abandon the older account as well. If anyone could connect anything to your real identity because of anything associated with your old account then let it die. It just amazes me that you wouldn't just do that.


 * If you don't want to edit Wikipedia any longer, I understand. It's a shame but it's your choice. We're all volunteers and can stop any time we feel like it. You certainly don't have to, but neither can anyone stop you. --  At am a  頭 23:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * This account is retired. I appreciate you showing up here and I appreciate you saying that you would be uncomfortable if your name was revealed. For example, there may be some disruptive editors that you've had to deal with in the past that would like to get that information to harass you. Now try to use that feeling and empathize with me for this little story. Someone was going on a determined outing campaign against me. This account was now compromised and useless. At the time I was a Wikipedian and thought that for the good of the wiki I would try to get this disruptive editor problem perhaps cleaned up a bit before I retire this account. I reach out to an admin that, IIRC, tried to redact the intial outing attempt. The editor with the outing campaign was in discussion with this admin anyway. This admin refused to discuss the outing problem instead tries to broker a deal where I abandon some perhaps legit (I think) perhaps not (I could be wrong) sock account that after any objective review, I believe, would quickly conclude was not a disruptive sock. This admin seemed to believe allowing outing in order get a non-disruptive sock dropped was an okay approach to deal with the situation. The real name account had almost no value. The main although small value was the idea that the outing editor might be a specific person that I'd encountered outside Wikipedia. That person would probably like me banned totally from Wikipedia ideally but if not that then the real name account would probably be their next choice. So tweeking that person's nose by keeping the real name account would be the little value left in that account. The thought being perhaps I open a new account in the distant future and start editting again. So anyway I open an ANI, stupid me. Mob mentality takes over. Not only is there almost no discussion on the outing issue, admins start outing me during the feeding frenzy. One admin even says that I'm lying (perhaps the actual word used was deceptive) when I say that I fear being outed. At about that point I decide this whole place. Here's my suggestions, Atama, on possible lessons to be learned from this story.


 * 1) outing is bad, much worse than most sock accounts and way worse than a non-disruptive sock
 * 2) allowing outing because someone has a non-disruptive sock doesn't make sense
 * 3) when you're in a ANI discussion, there should be at least some pretend discussion on the ANI topic
 * 4) outing is bad, admins doing outing is even worse
 * 5) the number one concern of Wikipedians should be improving the encyclopedia, admins should not go on mob lynches of productive editors whose only real disruption was trying to point out that an editor was going on an outing crusade against them.
 * I am no longer a Wikipedian. TallMagic (talk) 11:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I reread that and thought I should make sure the context was clear. I had already decided I had to retire this account and along those lines was contemplating when/if I might create a new account. Flame war type activities can be amusing in the right context but not the least bit fun on Wikipedia, at least not for me. The ANI was really the place where I decided that I'm no longer a Wikipedian not the reason. TallMagic (talk) 15:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Retirement
I've made the transition in my mind and no longer consider myself a Wikipedian. Cla68 conducted a most brilliant campaign, Outing, COI, SPI, notice boards and even a request to arbCom. Nothing of substance, everything closed in what could reasonably be considered in my favor and against Cla68's request, yet brilliantly successful. (I don't really know about the arbCom thing. I suspect that will just be dropped since I'm no longer around.) Anyway, congrats Cla68, you win I lose. My only consulation is that I can be glad that I'm me and not you. My view is that Cla68 is no longer my problem because I feel that I'm no longer a member of the Wikipedia community. He is a good editor but his campaign waged against me has left me scratching my head why? And with the firm conviction that there is something wrong with Cla68. Cheers, TallMagic (talk) 10:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Clearly your declaration here is false, as you continue editing under your other account. Trust me that you're going to be closely watched from here on out. --  At am a  頭 18:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Atama, I'm dissappointed that you continue to accuse me of lying. I have not and will not lie. I am no longer a Wikipedian. Perhaps that means something different to you than to me. I specifically said that all that I'd do in the future is occasionally edit a talk page or two. I do not consider that to be a Wikipedian. Your continued false accusations are sad to me. It appears to me that you're angry with me. I believe that at one time I was a productive contributor here on Wikipedia with minimal disruptive exchanges. I'm sorry that you find yourself so angry with me, I just feel that you're treatment of me has been and continues to be, on the whole, disrespectful and overly heavy handed. Since you obviously disagree with my feelings then I suggest that we just agree to disagree. I'm sorry if I've said something to you that you considered some kind of personal attack. It was not intended. All I've tried to do is to accurately express my disappointment in the behavior of some Wikipedia editors over the last week or so. TallMagic (talk) 04:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That is fine with me, we can agree to disagree. As far as I'm concerned you can continue to do what you want on Wikipedia with any other accounts, and I will not interfere with you as an administrator or otherwise. --  At am a  頭 16:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment: As I understand it, TallMagic's use of two different accounts was entirely legitimate, as outlined at WP:SOCK: Privacy: A person editing an article which is highly controversial within his/her family, social or professional circle, and whose Wikipedia identity is known within that circle, or traceable to their real-world identity, may wish to use an alternative account to avoid real-world consequences from their editing or other Wikipedia actions in that area. The other account was traceable to his real-world identity. After using it for a while for all of his Wikipedia work related to the controversial matter of diploma mills and related topics, he stopped using it for most purposes and established the TallMagic account as his main account. He did, however, retain the real-world-traceable account as an alternate account for talk page comments on a few specific matters about which he has a known interest. Now that the TallMagic account has been "outed" and he has pretty much quit Wikipedia in disgust, the status of the TallMagic account is moot -- but labeling the account as an illegal sockpuppet account was both a personal insult to the account owner and a declaration that WP:SOCK is no longer a Wikipedia policy. --Orlady (talk) 19:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yet why did he use both accounts to edit the same article on almost the same day? This just doesn't add up, and every time I've tried to get him to explain the discrepancies I get evasive answers. I don't want any personal info, and I have always been circumspect about it except when it doesn't matter (like the ANI report where 5 other people named the other account already). I'm all for bending the rules for an editor who has done good things for Wikipedia, for the good of Wikipedia (which is why we have IAR) but I just want to know why. Doesn't it seem strange that other people have to speculate as to why the original account is being kept? I've had you "guess" as to why it's kept just now, and an IP suggest it on my talk page, but TallMagic has refused to give an explanation. As I said, though, I'm done with this whole affair, it has taken up too much of my time and hasn't been satisfactory for anyone. --  At am a  頭 20:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * As near as I can determine, the above statement relates to edits made nearly 3 years ago, including the first edits that "TallMagic" made (a day or two after the account had been created). The simplest explanation I can see (and one that happens to be consistent with a note in an edit summary on one of the edits) is that the user intended to use the new account, but belatedly discovered that s/he was using a machine that was still logged in under the old account name. It's sad to think that this kind of mistake would be treated as the Wikipedia equivalent of a hanging offense, especially after so much time has elapsed. --Orlady (talk) 13:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I hate to involve myself further, but since you are an admin I would also like to note something. I've been trying to understand your point of view, but you keep changing hand-to-hand with regards to why you're doing this.  First it was because he was trying to avoid scrutiny, but in that very correspondence you would require him to abandon the legitimate sock, lest you would block it personally.  If I were in that situation, I would have difficulty engaging you myself.  Then there seemed to be an implication that he was posturing and you were lied to, which may be the reason and you're loathe to discuss it openly?  But then you said it's because he edited the same page with two accounts, and when I pointed out that is not always against the rules, now you say right above that it's because he did not speak to you openly enough.


 * By your current reasoning, not speaking to you openly is not a multiple account abuse reason for banning even though I'm not trying to excuse whatever rudeness you feel he has inflicted. I am not trying to compel an answer, but from an outsiders perspective I would like to say this.  In your next action in this regard, I would invite you to consider my confusion and try to take proactive steps to be clear.  I say this because I feel that banning someone even after they've retired the account does have meaning that should be considered, as this action could possibly serve to dissuade this editor from returning in the future should his feelings change. 72.192.46.9 (talk) 21:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Atama, in answer to your first question, I made a very minor change when logged into the wrong account. Then later there was a need for another very minor change and instead of just skipping it I thought I should use the last account I had used. IIRC, I then never editted that article again. I don't think that you ever asked me that specific question previously. I feel that an objective review would quickly determine that no disruptive objectives were in play here. The original account was kept primarily for editting the one talk page. I couldn't reasonably use a new account because that article was closely observed by ex-flame war participants and because I felt editting the talk page with a new account would be more deceptive than continuing to use the original account since that original account has a known history with the article and subject that could not be explained if any other account had been used. I thought that I had explained this or at least most. One of the problems I had with the whole approach taken on dealing with this outing is that I had no idea when a certain editor was going to show up and start attaching real names to anything said. I suggest that email is a much better approach to this type of issue. TallMagic (talk) 02:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Confused
I strongly support you and your continued editing. Is there a reason you won't just abandon the Real Name account? Hipocrite (talk) 15:25, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I also am confused. I can speculate, which is unhelpful. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with this decision, but for what seems to be the obvious reason. Atama may feel this is a case of being in witness protection and still wearing a shirt with your name on it, however the dual interests in this case can be far more easily linked to a real life person if they are seen on a single account.  His choice to defend himself against that would be to create two non-disruptive socks and continue editing in all areas with which he has interest (which I believe is perfectly legitimate), or to abandon one field of interest to keep his identity safe.  Were I in this situation, I too would consider the latter option to be unacceptable if there were another legitimate way forward.  Considering the combined push of 'why don't you just delete one', I must ask what I'm missing.  I try to keep myself up on policy before posting wherever possible however I just found out about this some minutes ago.  Why is it that people feel it would've made sense to delete one of these accounts, or that it's confusing for one not to get deleted?  72.192.46.9 (talk) 17:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)