Talk:Almeda University

message: Would someone other than a single purpose account please quantify the supposed neutrality dispute?  I see none here; the article is well supported by citations from reliable sources.  Guy 16:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since I, and not anyone else, added the tag: Balance of coverage, lack of information about the actual school, etc.  This is stuck only on these issues about its accreditation and ome of the news stories that have come out about it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The question is, can anyone find a reliable source that doesn't classify it a diploma mill? If not, we can't fudge the article just to be "balanced". That would be WP:OR. And if somebody does find such a source, just incorporate the information.  A.J.A. 16:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  Jeff, I see where you're coming from, but .  You're a good editor - if you can find reliable sources adding the other POV to the article, then go ahead and do it.  If you can't, then how are the rest of us supposed to do it?  TheronJ 17:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mainly because I've been working hard on another article and wanted to let this silly dog diploma edit war calm down a bit first.  Meanwhile, as an example, it's as if no one's bothered to check out their homepage, which is useful in limited quantities to get a good idea of what they do.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

text: No, it makes the point that Almeda make no attempt whatsoever to apply any standards of quality or verification to their degree applicants.  If you can get a diploma for your dog, answering the questions truthfully as this guy did, then that shows something fundamentally awry in the institution's quality control.  Or that it has none, and is a diploma mill, which seems to be what the majority of external commentators believe.  Guy 16:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: As far as I know, he didn't commit perjury; he just lied on the form to Almeda. That's a pretty common technique of investigative reporters. If you search a little, you'll see that he works (or at least worked) for the TV station, so my guess is that he did it at the request of the station reporters. That's why I think he didn't lie further. And both their story and our article are honest about the fact that he lied, so our readers can judge the situation as they see fit. Perhaps some will agree with you; others, like the station reporters, will feel that a little creativity in filling out a form is not quite enough to merit an Associate's degree.  William Pietri 05:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't know if it would be legal or not, but press coverage about it would certainly be relevant to a story about the airline in question.  TheronJ 17:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Indeed. Whether or not what he did was a crime doesn't seem obviously relevant to the article. But even if it were, it doesn't matter here until a reliable source says he committed a crime. William Pietri 02:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV tag 

message: As an answer to the questions below:
* People applying to Almeda do need to apply to the University. Not everyone is accepted based on life experience.
* Almeda University has tried to clean up it's image by becoming a more respectable online College/University to gain acceptance like
  to the likes of the University of Phoenix and other traditional college and universities.
* Any questions, feel free to go to the web site and "talk" to an online representative.
Spurred by Jeff's challenge to offer balance, I took a look for more reliable source references to Almeda.
* A story in CityLink about Almeda as basically their textbook example of a degree mill - no campus, no courses, no tests, and you get a degree.  The story also discusses Almeda's being driven out of Florida by the local regulators..
* A Naples police officer is forced to pay back his raise received after he received a promotion based on his Almeda degree.
* Two Naples police officers are fired for claiming degrees from Almeda; bring grievance.
* Stephen Twenge identifies Almeda as a "degree mill" that exists "only on the web."   (Note: This source might not meet WP:RS, as I am not sure of its publication info).
Jeff, I don't see how we're going to be able to introduce the POV you want.  Everything I see from any reliable source indicates that Almeda (1) has no campus, (2) teaches no classes, (3) administers no tests, and (4) offers degrees for about $600 based entirely on "life experience."  Are you going to insist on the POV tag until someone finds a newspaper article somewhere saying that Almeda is a great school whose degrees are widely accepted by people familiar with the school?  If not, what POV are we missing?  Thanks, TheronJ 18:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said above, there's certainly more that can be said about this place that isn't "diploma mill."  If I can get around to it later on, I'll certainly do it, but I don't think I'm taking some extreme position here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Jeff, if you can expand it go for it, but make sure that is passes WP:V. Some diploma mill websites steal data and names from legit schools and post it as their own history. Arbusto 21:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'll wait a couple of days more, but the tag needs to be removed soon. Arbusto 05:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  I'd second that. The more I dig into Almeda, the more the article seems reasonable to me. I'd be glad to find some positive information, but I haven't turned up anything so far. Jeff, if you have references, I'm glad to do the donkey work myself. William Pietri 05:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll give it a shot tonight, for real.  I got sidetracked the other night and forgot about it.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi, Jeff. That tag has been up for more than a week, and I think you're the only person currently favoring it. Would you mind if I removed it until you find the sources you're hoping for? Thanks, William Pietri 04:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, please read the article, if you think it's written in NPOV, just switch the tag to . The page says nothing positive about the institute, even the view of the institute itself in reply to any of the criticisms isn't posted. While it might be easier to provide criticism for an institute such as this, for a better coverage a balanced article is a lot better. It would let an informed person who reads the article to make their judgements by themself instead of reading it and believing that only one side is allowed to voice their opinion (which would lead them to ignoring the article). - Bobet 09:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Our article on Charles Manson doesn't say how kind he was to his mother, either.  The reason the article says nothing positive about the place is that, in essence, there is nothing positive which does not emanate from the place itself.  It's a diploma mill.  There's not much more to be said. Guy 10:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  First of all, I disagree with the analogy about Charles Manson, since the article about him does provide some balance, talking about his personal philosophy and motives for his actions. In this case the article has nothing but criticisms, which is bad, because it gives the appearance of an unbalanced article. Having some kind of retort, even from the institute itself would be better, and would let everyone judge things for themselves. You don't need to lead people by hand to the conclusions by providing one-sided coverage, especially in cases when the conclusion is this obvious (I don't disagree with you about the place itself). - Bobet 12:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry, I just haven't had the time for the type of research this ultimately deserves.  If a POV article is okay with people, I accept being in the minority, but we're just shortchanging ourselves. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Could you sketch out what you imagine would ideally get added to the article? I'm just having trouble imagining what you'd like to add. Thanks, William Pietri 15:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think that what Jeff is getting at is that we might, as an exercise in "writing for the enemy," create a new first body paragraph that stated Almeda's side of the story, cited to their website -- that Almeda offers degrees based on "life experience" as well as on-line courses in a number of primarily technical areas, and, well, I'm not sure what else would meet WP:RS guidelines for self-published materials in articles about the publisher.  IMHO, if someone wants to work on this, I think replacing the redirect at Life Experience Degrees with some cited material would be a better project.   TheronJ 17:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That doesn't sound unreasonable, but I confess that I'm skeptical that the Almeda College website expresses their view about Almeda College. It's the same question about the people running a pigeon drop: they express a point of view, but are we obliged to believe they hold that view? I don't have an answer; it's just a question I'm struggling with. William Pietri 04:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Regarding the Life Experience Degrees redirect, I'm for putting content there if it is real WP:RS. However, I doubt we can find anything of educational WP:V to claim anything that isn't covered on the diploma mill page (where the redirect goes now). Arbusto 00:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible additional sources for Almeda College and/or University 

message: I have to say I agree with Ernest K, and I ask myself, "why is this going on?".  Having reviewed this ‘discussion’ page on the continuing debate over the validity and veracity of the main article, I find myself unable to exit without bringing several participant’s attention to facts as yet unmentioned. As a Marketing Executive, I find myself both alerted and disturbed by the continual inference that working to modify, correct, and improve the article is repeatedly referred to as ‘whitewashing' as well other negative connotations.  Corporate entities routinely pay money to any number of individuals to control public opinion, and to research and review all written content, whether positive or negative.  For those of you who appear to be in the dark about the concept, it’s called Public Relations.  It’s a well-accepted practice and a well-accepted profession.  It not only has a large contingency of practitioners, but it also provides many with employment world wide.  Personally, I find it well within bounds, both legally and ethically, for any entity in business to avidly work to correct negative and slanderous representations made of their enterprise.  Sure, we all remember Julia Roberts in Erin Brockovich, wherein true harm was being done to innocent citizens by an enormous entity working to ‘cover up’ their transgressions, but the scenario hardly applies in a situation such as this, where a small, non-U.S.-accredited distance-learning website is working to offer hope, validation, and recognition to hard-working professionals.  Clearly, those invested should ask themselves, “ have [I] nothing better to do with myself?”.   In the past 20 minutes I have read postings by many who claimed to have gotten their degrees ‘the hard way’, only to see syntax and spelling errors in their rantings that are anything less than indicative of hard work.  Perhaps you people should ask yourselves, “why am I so angered by this?".  Is it that your ‘hard-way’ educations aren’t measuring up?  Or are you still in debt over your student loans, and willing to take it out on anyone you can?  Think about it…    Ugale  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiuserc (talk • contribs) 00:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment from Ugale 

message: :  moved from the top of the page
What I see is a smear job. I believe that most of the things being said are trying to imply that if a school is not accredited by one of the 7 regional accrediting agencies that it is some how illegal. Not true! 
And the preconceived bias is that if you acquire the same knowledge outside of a classroom blessed by one of these agencies (that are private business not government agencies), that this knowledge is of poor quality. —the preceding comment is by Ernest k - 00:59, 13 October 2006: Please sign your posts! — Ernest k (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 
:I think a dog getting award a degree shows more serious issues than mere accreditation. Clearly, the person recieving the money does not even care enough to validate a name. Arbusto 05:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment from Ernest k 

message: I think there is good evidence here that Almeda's a fake, but here's a link to the state of Connecticut action taken against Almeda.
Board of Governors for Higher Education
Department of Higher Education
State of Connecticut
http://www.ctdhe.org/info/pdfs/ReportUnlicensedSchools.pdf —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Captinron (talk • contribs) 05:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  State action against Almeda 

message: I have looked at all the discussions for Almeda University and have found that even the recently cited material from the State of Conn. is faulty.
Just because a Board of Governors for a State says it doesn't recognize a school due to licensing issues for that State doesn't mean it's a scam, fake or illegal.
Almeda is a accredite University and they have been trying to shed it's bad image.  Someone needs to give this University a break and open the doors to them.
Just because a University isn't of the traditional sense of an actual building and is a virtual school/university doesn't mean that it's not accredited.
Thoughts/comments/suggestions??? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dobsonr1 (talk • contribs) 02:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who is "I" and when was "recently" and what "representative"? 194.76.29.2
*I'm not sure this is worthwhile since articles are never indefinitely locked.  WilyD 14:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Almeda University 

message: In relation to the status of Almeda degrees in Florida and "Other states" the article now simply says that they are illegal.  This is misleading.  Saying simply that they are illegal suggests almost that it is illegal to own one.  Contrast this with the more correct usage in relation to Texas.  If you want to use a single word, "invalid" would be more appropriate. Eclecticology 18:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You should read more carefully. This section doesn't claim that they are illegal (against the law) but that they are not legal (not based on the law). 62.245.209.205 07:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Legal" vs. "Valid" 

message: If the PhD student can produce the thesis with this kind of standard, I would say it is not that bad as you think.
And also one of the Almeda faculty member is Prof. Wald Carum.
See below link for one of the thesis by Almeda student.
http://www.cepariseau.com/DISSERTATION-Evolution%20of%20Domestic%20Violence%20Awareness-Final.pdf Qwertytech
* To draw any conclusion from the implied quality of a single dissertation would be original research, and forbidden by policy.  Guy (Help!) 21:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thesis

message: This is totally unfair to portray this school in such a poor light.  Just because it is not accredited by the usual accrediting bodies does not mean the school is not accredited.  It clearly states what bodies it is accredited by, whether they meet the authors approval or not, and this article should say as much.  the accredidation issue was recently correected, and someone came back and re-wrote this smear campaign against the school,  What does the author have against the school?  I will be contacting the school personally and have them contact wikepedia to have this article totally removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.139.181.91 (talk • contribs) — 163.139.181.91 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 
:I think you'll find they are already trying to pay someone to do just that. The Kinslayer 14:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unfair

message: All diploma mills are, unsurprisingly, for-profit institutions.  Thus can Category:For-profit universities and colleges be added?  Or would that insult DeVry and Phoenix... --Bobak 01:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds reasonable to me. Can't object to being called what they are now can they. Besides, I'm sure they'll pay someone to remove it if they have a problem! The Kinslayer 14:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, I was going to add the cat, but it appears that the article is on lock-down. Can anyone shed any light on this? The Kinslayer 15:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Checked the history, an Admin locked the page after it emerged that the University is attempting to pay people to whitewash the article. Guess you'll need to get an admins attention if you want that category added. The Kinslayer 15:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is what the  tag is for, . Done, BTW. -- Avi 15:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't see any tag.... Turns out my offices web filter wont display the edit protected picture. Guess it must be classed as a security threat or something! The Kinslayer 15:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can someone add this cat? 

message: I was asked to review this article by an editor expressing concern that it violated NPOV, in being too critical of the group.  I conclude that, if anything, the article is not quite critical enough.  Almeda is deserving of no respect.  The article is well-cited, but I wonder if it meets Wikipedia:Notability. Michaelbusch 18:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you'll find the main reason they haven't found their way into the article is because the article has been locked to all editors following the emergence of evidence that Almeda is attmepting to pay people to edit the article round to how they think it should read. And Micahel, I feel notability is possibly acieved through the fact that Almeda is one of only a couple of companies that are attempting to bypass WP:COI by bribing paying 'independent' editors to edit the article on their behalf. The Kinslayer 18:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

text: * Not quite: there have been numerous prior attempts to - ahem - balance it, but they have fallen a bit short of the usual standards.  For example, this edit , which removes a few inconvenient but provable facts (well, most of them actually), and replaces them with the claim that it is accredited - by a body with no recognition or status.  Not that this is pointed out, you understand.  Call me a cynic if you like... Guy (Help!) 21:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The article has been locked until such time as it is deemed safe for it to be unlcked to be edited again. Admins not making additions is probably the best thing to do. Doing nothing is not indicative of bias. The Kinslayer 19:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I realize that formally, Almeda meets the notability criteria.  That said, I'm still inclined to delete or merge the article because I see nothing particularly notable about the company: it is just another diploma mill.  Would other editors please review the relevant notability policy and Wikipedia:I wouldn't know him from a hole in the ground and give their opinions? Michaelbusch 20:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I would be happier if someone else did it. The Kinslayer 13:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment on article

message: Here's another article with some more information on Almeda and how they're continuing to operate in Florida via the Boise PO Box: . William Pietri 22:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another resource 

message: The lead two paragraphs contain what appear to be opinions or points of view, and I think they could be rewritten to present the factual information about the topic. Here is the article text:
Almeda University is an unaccredited American diploma mill that offers an MBA program through online courses, a "Life Experience Degree" and an online certificate program. Almeda University was founded in 1997.[1]
Almeda is not accredited by any recognized accreditation body. As such its degrees are not acceptable to any employers or other institutions and the use of its degree titles may be restricted or illegal in some jurisdictions.[citation needed]
Specifically, the lead sentence describes Almeda as a "diploma mill." While many editors may feel that this is the case, I do not think that there are objective standards that would allow us to clearly know whether this applies.
The second paragraph says "not acceptable to any employers ..." While I understand the sentiment, I cannot think of a way of justifying it as a fact.
I would normally be bold and edit these paragraphs to make them more neutral, but given that there is apparent controversy around the article, as evidenced by its current protected status, I'd like to work towards a consensus for a more neutral version of the above paragraphs. I propose the following:
Almeda University, founded in 1997 [1], is an unaccredited American school that offers an MBA through online courses, a "Life Experience Degree" and an online certificate program. 
Because it is not accredited, Almeda's degrees are not recognized in many states in the United States, including: Connecticut, Florida, Texas, Oregon, New Jersey, and Illinois.
If anyone could suggest a better rewrite of the opening paragraphs, please do. --Zippy 17:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed NPOV rewrite of opening paragraphs 

message: I see somebody has edited the references to "novelty value only" out, and the comments suggest that gosh, Almeda's web site doesn't say that. It may not say it now, but this is the relevant paragraph that was easy enough to find with Google's cache:
: The applicant understands that Almeda University is not accredited by any of the seven regional accrediting bodies recognized by the CHEA (The Council for Higher Education Accreditation). The applicant understands that, while Almeda degrees are widely accepted, accreditation by the AOAEX does not guarantee or imply that your degree will be accepted by everyone. If you are unsure about whether the company you work for or the company you would like to apply to will accept your degree, we encourage you to contact them before proceeding any further with us. Since accreditation by AOAEX is not the same as regional accreditation, Almeda is unable to participate in the federal student aid program or the GI Bill. The applicant understands that Almeda University degrees are not legal for academic or business use in the following states: FL, IL, OR, NJ, ND, TX, WA, and ID. While Almeda is not aware of these states dictating hiring requirements to private businesses, the Almeda degree should not be used in these states for satisfying educational requirements in public sector jobs. Therefore residents of these states should consider the Almeda degree a novelty item only. Please click here for more information. 
:-- This is Google's cache of https://almedauniversity.org/application/new/policy-procedure.html as retrieved on Jul 20, 2007 20:10:24 GMT.
I don't have time to tidy the article up now, but I wanted to post the reference. I think it's sufficient to say that Almeda has said rather than says the degrees are "novelty items only". Removing the fact altogether seems inappropriate.
Thanks, William Pietri 21:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Novelty value only 

message: Under the Programs and Courses title I would suggest it be changed to reflect the information on Almeda's most current web page (as of today's date: 10-15-2007) to read:
Almeda University has programs awarding Associate, Bachelor, and Master degrees using Prior Learning Assessment. There are also Master and Doctorate programs in the areas of Business and Theology that require completing a thesis or dissertation. Almeda University also offers over 1000 non-degree technical and general knowledge programs and certification programs by e-learning. Swglush 21:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Programs and Courses 

message: Why does WilyD seem to believe that he has some kind of personal control over this article?  My most recent edits were perfectly legitimate and accurate but before you can blink he reverses them without explanation.  Surely Almeda is more accurately described as a company than an unaccredited university?  And including information lifted virtually word for word from Almeda's website as part of the article's text, without stating this, is hardly acceptable. Afterwriting 10:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WilyD's Reverts 

message: Just curious why the BBB section is relevant to a "university"?
Captinron (talk) 05:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  BBB? 

message: Due to edit warring at this page, it has been protected for four days. Please use this time to come to a consensus on the wording you wish to include. If you have agreed before the protection expires, drop by WP:RFPP. If you continue to disagree, perhaps you should list a request for comments. Stifle (talk) 08:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: The issue of accreditation is a bit bothersome. There are a number of "enlightened" institutions that have made their way into the mainstream of the US Armed Forces, and are recognized for their taking an individual's non-traditional credits, such as CLEPS, Navy SMART transcripts, ACE recognized credits, and experience.
Almeda University is a welcome change, for there are a number of people that have unusual life experiences, which would go unrecognized if framed in the rigidity of the traditional college framework. 
In Australia and Britain, its par for the course, to enter into what is called the Oxford system, where one apprentices with a senior practitioner/scholar, and upon completion of the course of training, the individual stands for a board, where one presents an oral defense. These are intense and draining. Yet, the way the individual presents themselves, speaks directly to the trainer under whom the individual apprenticed.
In short, the availability of non-traditional systems of evaluation that are not part of the DOE schema, does not invalidate a school's mission or vision. Take another example, the Distance Education and Training Council (DETC), one of the lowest possible accreditation, casts a wide net where institutions are recognized under the word "accreditation." Academic facility does not guarantee character. On the other hand, underdogs with a very rich life-experience base may find themselves attempting to navigate standard degree pipelines, yet not being able to extract the pertinent life skills a university is expected to provide. 
Tristan D. Cajar, Ph.D.
Assitant Professor, US Army —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.246.123 (talk • contribs) 22:42, 19 September 2008
:Hi Tristan, Welcome Wikipedia. It's unclear the intention of your comment. The purpose of this page is discussing improvments to the article rather than discussions regarding Alemda University. If you're proposing changes to the article then please try to be more specific. Thank you, TallMagic (talk) 00:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ponsi Educational Institutions are reputable, like Excelsior, Almeda, Western Governor's U 

message: OK here's the changes I recommend, which Orlady reverted in one go. Note that I didn't write out detailed rationales in many cases because it was a simple matter of just saying what the source said and ensuring all parties' POVs were mentioned. Anyone who wants to defend the article as is should explain why these changes should not be made. If I don't hear back, I might start simply by ensuring the text matches the sources without changing the weighting any. JJB 00:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The concern I have in that regard is that I suspect that the two sentences you added to the article that I critiqued in detail above were also an attempted "Match to sources" activity. It is good that you're now trying to reach a consensus, I respectfully suggest that you do one of three things. 1. Put your editting on hold and educate yourself first on the topic on hand. 2. Try editting in another area where you have a better understanding of what you're reading and what your edits are saying. 3. Perhaps continue trying to reach consensus, but put in just an edit or two at a time. That would make it much easier to comment on the individual edits and will avoid the sad situation where some good edits get thrown away in a big revert. Sincerely, TallMagic (talk) 20:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

text: I did the four marked above (5, 13, 14, 16) because they seemed pretty straight forward to what I thought JJB meant and I felt were not controversial. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 02:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

text: JJB, (or anyone else interested in learning the background information to become knowledgeable in accreditation, unaccredited institutions, and related topics) the best book to read, in my opinion, is Bears' Guide to Earning Degrees by Distance Learning. The 15th edition is available online for free. Note that there's a newer edition if you'd like to buy a copy. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 07:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Open questions

message: No one is trying to insult or smear anyone in this article that I've seen. The article did not claim that NAOAA was claiming to be an officailly recognized accrediting body. It is still important to point out the facts because the general public frequently doesn't understand the difference between accreditation and certification. Therefore it is good to clarify the matter. I've tried to make this clearer in my lastest suggested change. Zugman (talk) 21:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  NAOAA is unrecognized by CHEA and Department of Education 

message: Various editors (or perhaps a single editor using multiple accounts?) have asserted that information that they don't think belongs in the article is denigrating the subject. This is not the goal. The goal is to provide good information that is properly sourced according to Wikipedia rules. For example please review the WP:verifiability guidelines/policy for more detail.Zugman (talk) 18:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding paranthetical comment above, it is various IP addresses, not multiple accounts. Sorry for using unclear terms.Zugman (talk) 18:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Information is not denigrating 

message: Caution is advised for this article. The opinions expressed are dubious and misleading.
Llorracyeroc (talk) 19:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: (@Llorracyeroc)  Not done: Is there something specific that needs to be changed? --Stickee (talk) 22:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from Llorracyeroc, 8 November 2010 

message: I have been observing the Wikipedia entry for Almeda University and have made the following changes:
1) I have removed the statement in parenthesis: "(possibly also called Almeda College or Almeda College & University[1][2]" as unnecessary and possibly prejudicial. Almeda University was previously named Almeda College & University. It changed its name to Almeda University. Search engines will refer searches for the terms Almeda College or Almeda College & University to the Almeda University at website: http://www.almedauniversity.org
2) Under "Programs and courses" I have removed the statement: "According to its website" as redundant and possibly prejudicial. It is obvious by the reference to the Almeda University website "[5]" at the end of the sentence: "Almeda University offers associate, bachelor and master degrees using "Prior Learning Assessment" and also master and doctorate programs in business and theology that require the completion of a thesis or dissertation. Almeda University also offers over 1000 technical and business courses and certification preparation programs by e-learning.[5]"
3) Also under Programs and courses I have changed the number of e-learning courses to over 1000 as is currently stated on the Almeda University website.
4) Under "Reception" I have removed the reference to Bear's Guide to Earning Degrees by Distance Learning statement that Almeda College and University is "nonwonderful". Nonwonderful? This is not even a word. Even if it was, it would represent an opinion and not a fact.
Swglush
Swglush (talk) 02:03, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The "possibly also called" information is based on the third-party reliable sources cited, consistent with Wikipedia policy on verifiability. The statement "according to its website" is necessary because self-sourced information is not generally reliable and no reliable source backs up these items. They cannot be reported as objective facts without some corroboration from reliable sources. I've updated to 1,000 courses, which required a change in the reference citation. The word "nonwonderful" is a direct quotation and is formatted to indicate that. --Orlady (talk) 23:51, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The name "Almeda College & University" appears on some pages of Almeda's own websites, such as http://www.almedacollege.com/html/dev_about.html .  All of the other names are documented on the Oregon and Texas websites. I think it's pretty clear that "nonwonderful" is an opinion. --Orlady (talk) 02:19, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

text: Well, you have repeatedly edited this article to indicate "previously named Almeda College & University", but I do not see any source cited for that statement. Considering that the text you object to acknowledges some uncertainty by saying "possibly also called Almeda College, Almeda College & University, or Almeda International University", and the two names you apparently object to (as indicated by your repeated deletions of the names and the sources) are well supported by reliable sources, I don't see a major need to cite a bunch of pages on Almeda's website to document the use of the name that you freely accept as a former (if not current) name of the school. Regarding the Sacramento Bee, see Wikipedia:Link rot: "Do not delete factual information solely because the URL to the source does not work any longer.  WP:Verifiability does not require that all information be supported by a working link, nor does it require the source to be published online." --Orlady (talk) 03:25, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

text: It is customary for Wikipedia articles to include alternate and former names for the topic in the lead section -- and to highlight those alternate names in bold. This is particularly important when there are redirects to the article from those alternate names. This is not always done when the alternate name is one that was used a century ago (such as your Michigan example), but when the entity was known by a different name within the past few years (as in Almeda's case), it's rather important. In this instance, reliable sources associate Almeda with several names, so all need to be included for clarity. My apologies for thinking that you acknowledged the name "Almeda College and University." When I restore the other reliably sourced names that you deleted at the same time that you deleted this one, I will add a citation to the Almeda website to support the statement that it is also possibly a name for this institution. I imagine that your opposition to using the name "Almeda College and University" might be related to the fact that this is the name by which John Bear called the school when he said it was "nonwonderful" -- and that Almeda's operators would like to tell prospective students that he was referring to some other unrelated entity. This also is the name listed on the Michigan list of non-accredited degree suppliers. --Orlady (talk) 20:21, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove:(possibly also called Almeda College or Almeda College & University[1][2]). remove: according to it's website, remove word: nonwonderful , update # of e-learning courses. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Almeda University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://www.indyposted.com/188224/almeda-university-agrees-degree-holders-more-likely-to-find-work/#A1g8s32oTA3gJOGk.99
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121211132406/http://aoaex.org:80/ful_acc_mem.html to http://aoaex.org/ful_acc_mem.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110725000554/https://almedauniversity.org/application/policy-procedure.html to https://almedauniversity.org/application/policy-procedure.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nbc-2.com/articles/readarticle.asp?articleid=7960&z=3&p=
*Added  tag to http://www.yakima-herald.com/stories/2009/02/3/troopers-with-bogus-degrees-won-t-be-charged
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060824192605/http://www2.wrgb.com/iteam/investigation/investigation.asp?selection=article_23366 to http://www2.wrgb.com/iteam/investigation/investigation.asp?selection=article_23366
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:16, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Almeda University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.almedauniversity.org/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://aoaex.org/ful_acc_mem.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061108181011/http://almedauniversity.org/press-release.html to http://almedauniversity.org/press-release.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:22, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Almeda University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070628125146/http://www.ctdhe.org/info/pdfs/ReportUnlicensedSchools.pdf to http://www.ctdhe.org/info/pdfs/ReportUnlicensedSchools.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160225014140/http://publicdocs.courts.mi.gov:81/OPINIONS/FINAL/COA/20160114_C323499_37_323499.OPN.PDF to http://publicdocs.courts.mi.gov:81/OPINIONS/FINAL/COA/20160114_C323499_37_323499.OPN.PDF
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160224233836/http://publicdocs.courts.mi.gov:81/OPINIONS/FINAL/COA/20160114_C323499_38_323499P.OPN.PDF to http://publicdocs.courts.mi.gov:81/OPINIONS/FINAL/COA/20160114_C323499_38_323499P.OPN.PDF
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:07, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Almeda has appeared on the CBC program Marketplace on their investigation on diploma mills.
Is there anywhere where we can list it?
thanks.
Andrew Nichols  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.101.62.55 (talk) 21:18, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Find a third party source and it can be added. Karst (talk) 19:14, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: CBC's marketplace

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Almeda University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051024014535/http://interfaitheduministries.org/members.html to http://interfaitheduministries.org/members.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060813154908/http://www.almedacollege.org/certification-accreditation.html to http://www.almedacollege.org/certification-accreditation.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070330070241/http://www.nbc-2.com/articles/readarticle.asp?articleid=7960&z=3&p= to http://www.nbc-2.com/articles/readarticle.asp?articleid=7960&z=3&p=
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:18, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified