Talk:Neumont College of Computer Science

message: Adding links here so I can find them later:
* The Most Innovative College in America? — Some good stuff in here about the history of the university, including their mention in the Spellings commission report. The journalist also offers some criticism which I may cite to give this article more NPOV.
— Joey Day (talk·edits) 13:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

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

message: http://www.linuxsymposium.org/
Why is this link on this page? -Indolences 20:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  linuxsymposium.org 

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

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

text: I agree with Gratans--Collegestud (talk) 22:37, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gratans. 72Dino (talk) 22:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Sockpuppet reported for banned user 69.27.21.250 regarding suspected puppet Nemont. Gratans (talk) 06:30, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

text: Looks like another editor agrees with me, so I'm reverting the Controversy section removal by ElKevbo who did so again without any consensus. Sorry to disappoint you but I have only one Wikipedia account. It looks like we can safely assume that 72Dino is a Neumont staff member as well as ElKevbo at this point. I will continue recommending this wiki for semi-protection as long as this vandalism does not stop by all these Neumont employees and spammers. Gratans (talk) 05:25, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Except that's not all you did. this edit not only removes random improvements (such as adding wikilinks), it make the claim that the Kennedy was 'forced' to step down, when the source says he was 'asked' to. Even if there's consensus to add the 'In October 2006' paragraph back there was no discussion let alone consensus for these changes. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:34, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the input. I agree with you - editors (i.e. ElKevbo) should stop deleting the paragraph without discussing first. We have 3 editors already that support retaining this paragraph (Gratans and Gwickwire and Collegestud for starters), Does anyone have access to the edits made to this paragraph that included relevant wikilinks? I couldn't find it intact due to the ongoing vandalism by ElKevbo. Gratans (talk) 05:40, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You are misconstruing what I said. I never said that "editors (i.e. ElKevbo) should stop deleting the paragraph without discussing first."  Stuartyeates (talk) 18:52, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Found them and updated wiki according to suggestions from Stuartyeates. Gratans (talk) 06:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

text: And in case I need to remind other editors, the Neumont University campus (69.27.21.250) was already banned from Wikipedia for ongoing vandalism since 2006. This institution has dozens of other Wikipedia accounts and will continue to vandalize this wiki daily until we get it locked down after cleaning up all content. Gratans (talk) 06:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Gratans--Collegestud (talk) 18:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

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

text: (Ignoring that "revert[ing] deletions...for the 5th time now" is way past 3RR...) If you object to my edits then you owe us all the courtesy of explaining precisely why you object to them other than your bizarre accusations that I'm in cahoots with the subject of this article.  I explained precisely why I removed the material in my first comment in this section.  Now it's your turn to respond to those points and help us understand why you object to them. ElKevbo (talk) 17:06, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is that you all have been around Wikipedia a long time (much longer than I have, obviously), and you could easily gang up and get me banned if you really wanted to. However, I hope that you might instead acknowledge that yet another high profile wiki page is being vandalized by a very organized team of spammers and help do something about it, regardless of my personal involvement or opinions. Dozens of lives have been ruined by the inaccurate information spread around the internet by companies like this one and aiding their spamming campaign because of petty edit-warring is rather disappointing in my view. Gratans (talk) 10:30, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Stop slinging labels at people with whom you disagree (really, I'm a "spammer?"  What links have I continually added to articles and promoted?).  And stop with the over-the-top bulshit (really, "dozens of lives have been ruined" by people having content disagreements over articles like the one describing Neumont University?).  I'm glad that you appear to finally be coming around to the idea of meaningfully engaging with other editors but if you're going to stick around you should learn to act more like a serious editor with whom others can engage without having to dodge meaningless accusations and hyperbole. ElKevbo (talk) 15:11, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that you think my above feedback is solely about you is quite illustrative of your narcissistic, inhospitable behavior on Wikipedia. Now that you've finally stooped to the level of cussing at other editors, it goes to show just how classy you are and how you refuse to approach editing this wiki objectively. You've clearly made editing and updating this wiki a completely personal issue (self-centered issue) rather than encyclopedic issue as it should be - your biased intentions should now be quite clear to everyone. P.S. please don't plagiarize arguments I've already made against you, think of your own opinions. Gratans (talk) 17:27, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

text: Moving forward, thank you ElKevbo and 72Dino for finally engaging in productive discussion. (ElKevbo, you claim to have explained your actions regarding deleting the Inside Higher Ed "controversy" paragraph, but in fact you have NOT yet done so to date, anywhere on this Talk page that I could find.) The reason I support keeping the paragraph about the Inside Higher Ed investigation into Neumont University is because IHE is arguably the most authoritative magazine in the United States regarding higher education issues and policy. The story they broke in 2006 involves George W. Bush's historic Commission on Higher Education, widely considered to be the most important influence on higher education policy that the US government has initiated in recent decades. Personal opinions aside, this story involves a former president of the USA, the US Department of Education, and the subject of this wiki page itself, Neumont University; the scandal was directly investigated by IHE who are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia page ... (they also are indexed by Google and Yahoo News which is rather illustrative). Checking (much) earlier edits to this Talk page, other editors support this reference too. So, please explain why you believe this is not a notable reference? Gratans (talk) 10:30, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I've already explained my reasoning above under "b."  In summary: It's an editorial and it's dishonest to include it in an encyclopedia article as if it were a genuine news or investigative article.  (And for what it's worth The Chronicle of Higher Education is still the preeminent higher education news source in the U.S. although IHE has been making steady inroads since it was founded a few years by former Chronicle staffers.) ElKevbo (talk) 15:11, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: In other words, you have no reason (supported by Wikipedia guidelines) for removing it besides (apparently) your own personal hatred of Inside Higher Ed. (Other editors please note that ElKevbo also argued that The New York Times should not be considered a trustworthy source for Wikipedia articles.) Shall we assume you are a partisan supporter of The Chronicle, or just an inexplicably loyal guardian of Neumont University? Gratans (talk) 17:27, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Gratans: If you want to make compelling arguments I suggest you start toning down your rhetoric and stop assuming that editors are Neumont University employees. ElKevbo and 72Dino have been here for years before you arrived and started editing this article. You need to stop, think it through, and look at their user contributions before making outlandish (nonsensical) claims. -- Marco Guzman, Jr  Talk   18:08, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The five minutes it took you to condescend to me could have been better spent lending your opinion to the discussion at hand. For the record, I'm not the one who needs to tone down - it is ElKevbo that continues to cuss at me, which I reported to Wikipedia administrators. And just because he has been here a long time does not mean Neumont University (and the other for-profit colleges he seems very determined to watch over on Wikipedia) do not have ways to influence his editing habits. If any editors are willing to contribute their views on this article that has been removed multiple times since 2006, please share your feedback below. Gratans (talk) 18:15, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Ongoing Vandalism

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

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

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

message: Rduane (talk) 20:28, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? There's no such thing as a "public, for-profit university." The extra word is redundant. Flyte35 (talk) 20:36, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. EvergreenFir (talk) Please  21:34, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: As a point of information, this institution's Basic Carnegie Classification (shown here) is "Special Focus Four-Year: Other Technology-Related Schools." This is a 4-year institution "where a high concentration of degrees is in a single field or set of related fields."  So although I'm not wild about the "technical institute" label it may indeed be appropriate. ElKevbo (talk) 21:53, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Certainly moreso than "university."  --JBL (talk) 22:45, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2016