User talk:Veronica678

Welcome!

Hello Veronica678, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits have not conformed to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy, and have been reverted. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! A.J.A. 20:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Concerning your edits to Almeda University and Life Experience Degrees
Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's NPOV policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. A.J.A. 06:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Veronica678 10:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC) Why would you invalidate true and factual information that is validated by accurate links? A.J.A is NOT NEUTRAL, but is providing only the negative comments without providing a fair and factual representation. For example, the article about a dog getting an Almeda degree is completely inaccurate. According to the BBB, Almeda has rejected (turned down) over 90,000 applicants that didn't meet the requirements. Furthermore, Almeda requires a valid identification before it confers a degree. That article has been proven false several times as the author has failed to provide a copy of Rover's diploma even after numerous requests. Next, Almeda was never closed down in Florida by legal action. The Oregon website quoted by A.J.A. was wrong. The Florida news article quoted by Veronica was accurate. In it, it states that that in 2003, Almeda reached an agreement with the State of Florida to cease issuing degrees from within the state of Florida and to cease direct advertising to Florida residents. If you do some research, you will find this is accurate and A.J.A.'s statement is false. Now A.J.A. is threatening to block this accurate information in favor of inaccuracies.
 * The statement regarding the dog is sourced. Your assertion of inaccuracy isn't. Therefore I have reverted it again. Please review WP:V and WP:NOR. A.J.A. 17:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

So what? It's clearly biasaed as are you. Perhaps I am too, but you fail to give both sides of the Almeda argument. Only one. At least I give both sides. I am much more neutral than are you. Do you think everything in the newspaper is true? The news article has given no proof at all to the validity of the dog story. Did you know that when you get a degree from Almeda they validate your Identification? Do you want me to prove that? Where did the dog get his I.D.? It didn't happen. No "doggie diploma" has ever been produced becaus none exist. Period!

Furthermore, even if a "doggie diploma" did exist, it would be complete fraud on the part of the person that applied. It would be akin to having a friend take your SAT's or cheating on an important college entry exam.

I have reviewed WP:V and WP:NOR and as clearly as I can see, I am in no way violating any of its parameters. You have launched your own personal attack on Almeda University and Life Experience Degrees. You are clearly a violation of NPOV policy. Please stop or I will have you reported for spewing a personal attack against Almeda University.
 * Be aware that I made a report myself. A.J.A. 18:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Veronica, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, committed to presenting what is verifiable from reliable secondary sources in a neutral way. The consensus among reliable sources is that life experience degrees are worthless and a hallmark of diploma mills.  Your assertions to the contrary amount, I'm afraid, to original research, in that they are not backed by reliable sources.  You may feel that it is terribly unfair that unaccredited schools are given a rough ride on Wikipedia, but that is a reflection on their verifiable lack of academic credibility.  Above all, when we have cited criticisms from state governments, these should not be removed.  Before you can fix this in Wikipedia, you first need to fix it in the real world: once state governments and educationalists stop criticising unaccredited colleges and (especially) life experience degrees, then we can reflect that here.  Until that happens you are swimming against the tide and are unlikely to get what you want.  Guy 08:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I can accept everything as it is now regarding Almeda except the part about the dog. If a person filled out an application using a fake (dog's) name, I assure you that the content of the application stated nothing about playing with children and wagging a tail. Furthermore, if someone did complete the application with enough fake personal details to be awarded the Almeda degree, with the sole intent of discrediting Almeda, then it violates several laws including fraud and entrapment. All applicants have to sign electronically that they are at least 18 years of age and all information contained within their application is true and correct. Furthermore, the dog story was not created by a news team investigation, but was an uncorroborated story told to the news – which they chose to print without verifying the details.

I do not understand why you refuse to print both sides on the Almeda issue, but have no apparent problem printing an uncorroborated news article that, even if true, was created by committed by fraud. This is akin to sending a friend with your birth certificate in to take your drivers license test for you and then bashing the Department of Motor Vehicles for issuing you a drivers license when you can't drive. &mdash;the preceding comment is by Veronica678 - 17:46, 30 September 2006: Please sign your posts!

Hi. I see you're having some trouble, and wanted to stop by to see if I could help. It looks like you could benefit by reading our policy Verifiability. In part, it reads, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader must be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, because Wikipedia does not publish original thought or original research." If Almeda College has issued a press release on the topic, it might be possible to add something starting, "Almeda College claims that..." and following with a quote from the press release. But continuing to remove information because you don't like it will end up getting you blocked. See WP:SPA, WP:AUTO, and WP:VAIN for more on why Wikipedia, which is pretty relaxed in general, has relatively little patience for the sorts of edits you have been making lately. Hope that helps, William Pietri 18:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Copyright, cutting and pasting
Your edits to Life Experience Degrees are simply cut-and-pasted from. As it says blow the edit box, "Content that violates any copyright will be deleted." Oh, it also says, "Do not copy text from other websites without permission. It will be deleted." Perhaps you missed those. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 22:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I own that material. I wrote it and I agreed to allow it on degreeadvice. How do you want me to prove that to you? Shall I have them give me credit for the write up on their website?

Third warning
It if fairly significant that this place awarded a dog a degree and has been called a diploma mill.

It does that they don't require much proof for their life experience degrees.

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Arbusto 18:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Since when does taking an out of context quote and putting it into its proper context called Valdalism?Veronica678 14:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The three revert rule
Hi. Perhaps you aren't aware of it, but the three-revert rule strictly forbids any editor from reverting any article more than three times in 24 hours. Note that this isn't an allowed quota of three per article per day; if you're getting close to that (as you have recently) it's a sign you should calm down and pursue other means of resolving the disagreement, starting with discussion with the other editors involved. Let me know if you have any questions. William Pietri 18:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Message to William Pietri Thank you for your concern. The issue here is that the Wikipedia editors are taking an already slanted and biased news article and quoting it out of context to purposely mislead. The editors are stating that a dog got a degree from Almeda University. They take a quote out of context from the news article to further prove their biased point of view. The fact is the dog did not apply for the degree. The dog did not make payment for the degree. The dog did not sign for the package when it arrived. A person, the dog's owner, completed the application using the dog's name Wally (which can also be a name of a natural person) and his own last name. Then he (Wally's Owner) applied for a degree using phony information, some of which he lists. My edit was accurate and should not be changed to the misquoted text. &mdash;the preceding comment is by Veronica678 - 14:25, 2 October 2006 UTC: Please sign your posts!

I understand you have a disagreement with other editors. This is a common condition for new editors who come here and work only on a relatively narrow range of topics in which they have a personal interest. I'd encourage you to spend a few months working on topics in which you are not so personally invested before editing those articles again. Regardless, you are expected to follow such Wikipedia policies and guidelines both about behavior (like WP:3RR and WP:DR) as well as those on content (like WP:V and WP:RS). At the moment, you might contemplate the part of WP:V that says, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.". William Pietri 18:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Message to William Pietri Did you read what I wrote? I am aware of the threashold for inclusion. Please carefully compare my latest revision with the current revision. You will see that I had included a larger part of the quoted sentence than the other editor. I did so to simply put the quoted article in proper context. Frankly the entire article consists of a person engaging in fraud and deception. But all I was trying to do is to put the article in its proper context regardless of the fact that the article was based on lies. Veronica678 16:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)