Talk:DeVry University/Archive 3

message: Thank you everyone who has commented here and edited the article! It's already looking so much better than I could have hoped to do myself. Please accept my apologies for being melodramatic when asking for help. :) Vagary 08:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Thank You All!

message: Okay, as a completely uninvolved editor, I've got a few things I'd like to say here.
First, I agree that the article is a hash. It's got definite problems right now, and could do with a complete rewrite to make it neutral and encyclopedic. The comments above that link to the key guidelines that apply to this article are very important, as those are what the editors working on this article need to consider.
More importantly, however, editors need to remember that they should comment on content, not contributors. Many of the comments above have been verging on personal attacks, which are not acceptable. Please assume good faith in your dealings with one another and with the article, and things will go just fine. The editors working on this article are not vandals. Please stop making such accusations. 
The best way to move forward is to discuss POLITELY the problems with the article and the changes that must be made to meet the guidelines. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a battleground. I'm more than happy to try and help with the rebuild, as long as editors assume good faith with everyone else. Cheers. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: Thanks to all who offered advice on this article to this Wikipedia newbie.  The advice I got can be summed up as "stop kvetching on the talk page, create an account, and start editing!" so I'm doing so.  Since there have been a lot of discussions about this page, I wanted to give a brief summary of my edits.
First I removed the lingering advertising-sounding parts of the article.  These include the link to an article about DeVry grads and the praise for the library system.
Second, I removed some of the vague language on the other side of the NPOV spectrum -- things about how DeVry "apparently" has accreditation, or the misinformation about the FAFSA code.  News blog entries about lawsuits from 1999 didn't seem particularly noteworthy, but if someone could research these cases and post their outcomes, that would be a good replacement.
Third, I removed things that really just seemed out of place.  These include the headers with no content and the comments about DeVry being a lucrative business for investors.  I'm not sure if that was intended as advertising cruft or as genuine observation, but either way it's out of place (and either uncited or original research, or both.)
I didn't add anything, just removed and re-arranged things, so please take a look at my edits and let me know if you think I went too far in trying to get this article back to being encyclopedic and NPOV.  Thanks!  OtterZero 12:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits to remove non-NPOV stuff and advertising

message: All of the edits that I made a few minutes ago have been reverted, ignoring my comments as well as breaking the layout marks on the page.  What do I do at this point?  Should I request moderation?  I'm trying to compromise, per the guidelines of Wikipedia, and it's not working. OtterZero 13:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Poor reversion

message: I don't want to get in an editing/reverting war over this article.  However, I would like it if anyone could review the changes I made this morning (via the "history" tab, since that's the only place they exist anymore) and comment on them here on the Talk page.
I feel as though the outright and almost immediate reversion of all of my changes, without so much as a Talk page note, were invalidating my contribution to the article.  I feel, well, silenced.   Bullied, perhaps.  I question whether I will be able to make any changes to this article at all without immediate reversion, and that's not a good feeling. OtterZero 14:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for comments

message: I've done a quick wikification and cleanup of the article and its various issues such as duplicated paragraphs, lack of paragraphing and some NPOV issues: You can see what I've done here.  Comments are welcome.  x42bn6 Talk 16:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, it looks much better!  It's a good compromise between the various edits that myself and other users have made recently.  I'm still concerned about this section though: "Private educational institutions, as DeVry Inc, appear to be guiding prospective students to apply for student loans that are rendered by private lenders or to increase their family contributions to pay for the higher cost of their tuition. These business practices are being investigated by the respective authorities at the present moment.[4][5]"  I feel as though it's deceptive -- a connection is being drawn to DeVry that isn't present in the cited sources.  Also, the dates for the reference links are gone, making it sound like the lawsuit and Canadian protest are recent, when in fact the sites show that they took place in 1996 and 2000.  Should the dates be noted next to the links? OtterZero 17:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree it's looking far better, but there is a bit of a concern with the references as noted above. The press release from AG Andrew Cuomo's office doesn't mention DeVry, and doesn't single out private institutions at all - it's a blanket comment, and may not be the best for that particular spot. The second one regarding the class action lawsuit seems fine, though. I'd agree that the dates for the lawsuit and protest might best be mentioned in the article. Also, does it really need that huge list of campuses? It might be better to mention the states and provinces in which it operates as part of the prose. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quick cleanup 

message: I came to this page from the Wikiquette alert posting.  I'm pleased to see the positive responses to the various comments.  I'm taking this page off my way-over-full watchlist, so I won't see replies entered here. If you need my attention, you're welcome to leave a message on my talk page.  Good luck with the article!  --Parzival418 20:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Good-bye for now

message: Please leave the talk header at the top: we've had a lot of irregular comments in the past. I'd like to move that the talk page be archived above this point - any objections? Vagary 18:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I support your suggestion to archive the previous discussions on the talk page.  They will thus be preserved for anyone who wants to review them, but not overwhelm anyone looking for current discussions on this article. OtterZero 23:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for archiving, Parzival418! Vagary 07:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk Page Formatting 

message: Maybe this is a really bad idea, I dunno. I thought a to-do list might make the talk page less daunting to new editors and help the existing editing stay focused on the article. I came up with some items off the top of my head (based on discussions here, deleted material, general Wikipedia goodness, etc.) and put them in no particular order. Hopefully the list contains things that editors with strong feelings about DeVry in either direction can constructively contribute to? Obviously feel free to edit it, keeping in mind that there's no room in the to-do list for discussion. And if you think it's disruptive I'm open to scrapping it. Vagary 21:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: To-Do List

message: I just checked both SEC reports and neither mentions any controversy in Alberta, so I moved the citations. The thing is, class action lawsuits were basically not legal in Alberta until 2001, after DeVry could grant degrees, so hopefully a good reference will clear up exactly what happened, as well. Vagary 18:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps not but I was looking for sources - awfully hard to find.  This (page 21) has a lot of information about various lawsuits - all thrown out but some appealed - and I think we may as well condense the information, or put it into a list.  x42bn6 Talk 19:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I went through all the Hansard hits for "devry" and added everything I found. There's nothing relevant in the judgements of the Alberta courts (although of course it could have been settled). Can subscribers to the Calgary Herald or Edmonton Journal search through their full archives? I think that's the only way we're going to find anything... Vagary 02:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 10-k item 3 go there easy all the history of peding lawsuits and Class action agains DeVry University and Devry Institute of technolgy -Veritas Longa 00:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither of the SEC documents even contains the word "Alberta" or "Calgary". As I said, it is extraordinary to claim that there was a class action against DeVry in Alberta before 2001. My best guess that the class actions in the US and the accreditation in Alberta got mixed together during editing at some point. I'm going to strip the sentence, someone can put it back if a source is ever found. Vagary 00:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

text: http://www.secinfo.com/dM9bf.93.htm This filing contains information about a class action lawsuit filed against DeVry in Alberta. Here are two article on a class action lawsuit filed by three American students and the effect it had on DeVry's stock.  http://www.expressnews.ualberta.ca/article.cfm?id=778  http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news/devry.htmlI believe these are obviously controversies that should be listed in a controversy section. BTW the name of the class action lawsuit in Alberta was: Mouhteros v. DeVry Canada Inc. (1998), 41 O.R. (3d) 63 (Gen. Div.).  So it does exist.  Mysteryquest 05:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually don't see the references to an Alberta suit in those three links (which page in the Annual Report?). But you're absolutely right about Mouhteros v. DeVry: and the reason we've been missing it is that it was filed in Ontario! I'll add something about it (assuming you don't). Vagary 07:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Vagary: It is on page 34 of the report, just do a search for "class action".  The pertinent verbage reads: "In July 1996, the Company was served with a class action lawsuit in Canada alleging misrepresentation about the quality of the DeVry Institutes' educational programs.  The Company believes that the claims in the lawsuit are frivolous and without merit.  In response to the lawsuit, the Company has filed a Statement of Defense and intends vigorously to contest the allegations." It is most likely the Mouteros suit they are talking about, which was appealed in 1998. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mysteryquest (talk • contribs) 16:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh okay, I was still looking for the mythical Alberta suit. Anyway, great researching on the other suits! Vagary 18:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alberta Class Action 

message: Why does someone keep removing the talk banner at the top of this page?  Valid reasons were presented for adding it to the top of the page, but no valid ones presented for removing it. OtterZero 23:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Appears to be a revert plus the section above.  x42bn6 Talk 23:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Talk banner removal?

message: I just realized that the University of Phoenix is the most similar institution, so I added a See Also link. Look at that article for inspiration. Vagary 02:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It sounds to me like perhaps these institutions may belong (and already are) in some of the same categories but I'm not seeing a direct enough reason to add UofP to the "See also" section.  Exactly why would the UofP be in this article's "See also" section?  --ElKevbo 18:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They're often mentioned in the same breath in Canada (probably because they're the only two American private colleges big enough to move into the market). But I'm not wedded to the See Also reference, so feel free to remove it. Vagary 20:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  University of Phoenix 

message: Now. If and only if you work for DeVry and you are trying to edit in here, and this is kind of thoughts are offensive for you, please show us proof and evidence for your side on the controversies, and do not try to mitigate or denied the substantiation on DeVry's history archives.  Do not come to Wikipedia to advertise or accusing of vandalism while you are doing it is Imposing your views by erasing Official public Information, because, what would happen at the end of the day and throughout many mornings is that, the headers and banners will be reaching in extensible and multiplying Blogs [exactly like a virus] and the newspapers, as hungry as they really are for scandals, about:  "DeVry Inc. executives are vandalizing Wikipedia" Read Inside: Trying to hide and cover-up their misdeeds and deceptive and historical business practices DeVry Executives are bulling and threaten Wikipedians that antagonized their views in what is the most open an neutral encyclopedia ever create by the humankind, DeVry is using different tactics to silence well intentioned Editors, who are presenting evidence and seem to be tire of its propaganda, Well we did a Especial report this is "60 Mininutes" and continue... It seem that this same DeVry Inc.'s tactics are know in the blogsphere as .... Will continue soon  -Veritas Longa 14:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Assume good faith!  Do not assume that the people who are removing criticism are DeVry employees.  They could be graduates who have enjoyed studying at DeVry University.  They could be mindless vandals or clueless newbies.  They could be newbies testing out things.  They could be people who misinterpret NPOV as only neutral views being allowed.  And they are not threatening other members - if they are, you can go to WP:AN/I with diffs of evidence and the sysops will deal with it.  If these people are DeVry employees, you are threatening them by saying it could go onto 60 minutes or various blogs exposing it - and this is harassment.  Which is why after you make a new edit to this page I am removing this paragraph.  x42bn6 Talk 15:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I assumed good faith and have good faith, I have good will, do you think I would write in this way if I were not have good will. Think, look and do. Do not remove paragraphs because, even if you do, it does not mean that actually that is not happening, people are in the process as other organizations but it takes time, do your research, as I told you, The law is the law, it takes time but in one way or other comes. Respect entries, honor the readers, honor history, and remember, I never have move your comments out of this page, because this page belong to all of whom want or will want to contribute to DeVry University as an entry to be read in an universal encyclopedia page.-Veritas Longa 19:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A talk page is not meant to hold information about an article - it is to discuss the article itself.  When it comes to harassment, there is no compromise.  Editing is meant to be a conducive environment and harassment does not help that.  x42bn6 Talk 21:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: → You have your own definition of harassment and talk page, it seems that it has not seen to have been well supported only other that by yourself and two, probably socket-puppets "evil-doers" that are vandalizing this entry page for suspicious reasons. Hurray! they are very happy because you are acting as their defender now they do not have to deal with me at all. Read this well everybody is welcomed as far I concern as a person, as a mind no matter how they look like, or what they do believe, or work with as long they are not exploiting or harming the contents or Wikipedia at large, and please, I am not stating that anyone in her want to do that, as far as I know. However, when your views are not supported and shared by others that are out of the discussions and supposed to be in another lever than you, what you do or did, eh? I tell you seem to go a get a self-talk with your mind, like saying I am omnipotent and I will destroy the content not matter what, because I said this is harassment, when the reality is that I wrote some Digimon and not you say that I have Digimonized you.  That is why you want to destroy my content, that is your hidden agenda, and for you my post was as a matter of fact bad and harassment.  -Veritas Longa 01:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: → You can always cross it out with consensus, that is the way to do it with respect, as I still think you can to do it and have the honor to cross out your example of how "good" DeVry is, by Devry's own version of its recursive entity as they are going to say what really is happening in DeVry to us. Now, describe for me how good you are and I will believe you, right?. Be a good Wikipedian and meditate and reflex on this. Calm down and then up, I see the greatness on you. I think that somehow you have been spelled by the malign forces embedded of Devry Inc. Finally, do not call harassment or personal attacks to what we are doing, I believe that you have been harsher on me, relax, however, honor our[the community's] discussion and put back what you took, [as you too well wrote it, leave to the sysops and admins to deal with it, I stand on/by my stances, and my painstaking research over the years; by the way over the shoulders of what of whom you are standing on so strongly resolved? I almost tented to think on Digimon but I couldn't do it so I wrote it, so you know my thoughts at the moment] Why I have posted, does not belong to me, and  it is not yours either, belong to others, to our community, and you or I, are not others, you or I, are only one a minuscule little part of these Wikiuniverse, DeVry Inc. is an entry, a very small nano-particle and I am using it as experiment and  as an example of how difficult is to deal with systemic sickness and pervasive maladies in our current society. -Veritas Longa 01:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "I am using it as experiment" ← WP:POINT Vagary 01:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  you are taking my thoughts for your own interests against not me but to favorite DeVry Inc. entry in here, I meant this could serce as an experinment but I wrote and it is there, assume good faith. -Veritas Longa 00:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Section break 2

message: Vagary has left a message, in my talk page, I do not agree Vagary and how vagary and Xsomething wants to take the control of this talk page, and this is WP:OWN, you are not respecting the freedoms of Wikipedia, i do not agree with changes that you have done Vagary, this is not personally, Why, you can not leave this talk page alone? ah? stop to thread people so often with this or that if you are doing with your coworkers and friends, i just come here and i see this bullshit, no because we are young we can not coming here and edit, if you don't  like my comments then become a better editor, for all it is that you are trying to put Devry Inc. STOP to mandate or make orders what we need to do, just suggest, you are not the "big boy", and what our are doing is worst quite frankly than snitching around in here. Edit for the record, i have many friends that are reading you and are very interested in come here and defend the GFDL and the GNU vindication from you and you and you with different names. Perhaps you don't like but see your entries in this page and you will see how fixated have you become. -WOW!! DIGIMONS(talk)  03:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Vagary has done a lot of good work in making the article tidy and neutral. If you, Codeplowed, Diogenes Rex or anyone else who has spent their time complaining about people trying to actually do a good job on editing the article want to contribute something positive to the article, then go right ahead. Until then, stop with the rants. Please. People are getting tired of it. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fony Fox, Viagrary and X42bn6 or Otterzero and your many many IP addresses smell as was put by Digimons and "SqualidHabumberg'ofBallHam" Wikipedia is not DeVry Inc., the GPL and The GNU are legal and whily you can complaint, accused and interpret you Job in here you are bound to respect these licenses, We are many and we don't like the corporate attitude that you are exhibiting, your behavior is not welcome in here, contribute all you can and improve the contents but do not come wiht advertising, cheap links-traps and more importantly becareful how you are using Vandalproof and other tool, there a such a thing as privacy and there are such a thing as forensic evidence, Be loyal and do not put your organization in more trouble than it is, tell we are doing you a favor, but tell you some of what people has to say about DeVry, in the real page content the edition show this, as I am, Codeplowed, I decided to "regenerated" you other will just go ahead and change what it has to be change. Why you don't leave this page?  Why this is so important to you? Oh yes it is your job. Sorry but you system, see it again, It is slavery and Slavery is not the business of education. Education means within many positive thingd Freedom, at this point DeVry Inc. it is Dangerous, Ok our opinion, this is not part and neverl will part of your entry, but is you don't want this and other to tell you this in wikepedia, then stop to use wikepedia Respect WP:COI, WP:OWN, and take care of [[recentism}} and will not be a problem, who you are, or where are you working for, it have never matter, it is your attitude in responding and that is not the behavior, just don't tell Fony Fox that you have never been told. I did better than that I am writin it to you so you can read it many times until you see that your powers are bound to the Freedom of Speech and the Freedom of organize against tyranny and deceptive business practices, as we believe in justice and pursuit of happiness, just detach if you can and as suggestion go to another page and observe that the edition and deletions in the main DeVry Inc. Entry are sincere, neutral and make a lot sense to respond and document DeVry's History, I believe in education, I believe in the constitution and I believe in your right to desagree and replay to all my arguments, I believe in your right to come to Wikepedia, I am encouraging you to continue editing, Just do not spend more time in to write hundred of hundreds of complaints because you may have silence some people for some time, but you cannot silence all people all the times. Work with honesty, sincerity  and energy your children deserved, Every children deserve it, Come on, it is hard but do it at least once and edit and let us stop to do this, imagine a world without opposition, you need to act correctly that is all, you don't like detach go another place and then comeback you will see more clearly with your same eyeball. LEARN! excuseme but I am not going to edit this post no time may later read all you come I think is important Vagary behavior is bad anyway-Veritas Longa 16:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm Canadian, I don't believe in your Constitution and your kooky Freedoms. ;D Vagary 21:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  User 'Vagary', What do you mean about the [American] Constitution in here?  by the way your comments are  clearly demeaning, and it should not have been at all expressed in that  way --TemplarMission 12:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  We need to pay more attention with these kind of Jokes --WarAgainstTerror 14:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks, Tony! It's true, I've been posting a lot of Talk chatter. The reason is that I'm trying to inspire all the editors lurking here to start contributing! My dream is that Codeplowed and his digimonic friends will take over the Controversies section, exposing DeVry's underbelly with rock-solid referencing. And OtterZero and other COIs will flesh out the route details about DeVry, which will be so boring no one will be able to disagree with them. Unfortunately, the COIs are afraid to touch the article because of past and continuing harassment, and the anti-DeVry editors don't seem interested in doing any research beyond finding NPOV websites. Until the article is humming along smoothly, I'm not going to move on. Vagary 09:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vagary's bad Behavior

message: I converted "DeVry Inc." to "DeVry" in cases where it's not obviously about the parent company. I think this makes the text easier to read and it's not clear where one entity starts and the other begins, anyway. If you disagree, please provide a guideline for use? Vagary 20:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  convert all you want it does not matter this company DeVry Inc. DeVry University and DeVry institute of technology are very well documented, now at the end of the day there are family members of DeVry and and artist that has been impressed by the actions of this corporation that shares his last name, nope Vagar and your many  IP addresses nope "ambiguity" DeVry's main major.-Veritas Longa 00:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, I've done some more reading and it looks like they're legally the same entity (at least as far as us IANALs are concerned). So I've changed the intro to make this clear and we should be able to use just "DeVry" in the rest of the article with no ambiguity. Vagary 02:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inc. 

message: Although not all DeVry campuses are technically "universities", the majority are, and DeVry is given as an example of a colloquial University system. I feel that describing DeVry as such in the intro is a reasonable sacrifice of technical accuracy for readability. If there were a term like Post-secondary institution system, that would be preferable, but there is not. Vagary 21:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes there is and term post-secondary education though, now mention the acquisition of the Ross Unversity  and the other nursery school that DeVry has bought, oh you don't think is necessary either. -Veritas Longa 23:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you feel we have justification for splitting DeVry University/IT and DeVry Inc. into separate articles? Until we do (and I think we shouldn't be hasty), we'll just have to live with a certain amount of ambiguity and inaccuracy. :( Vagary 00:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since they appear to be essentially the same thing, perhaps not.  They both have to be notable.  x42bn6 Talk 01:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good call, the company page calls them "divisions", so that's the language I've changed it to. (I didn't think this warranted a reference, feel free to add it.) Vagary 01:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not the greatest reference in the world but a bad reference as long as it tells the truth is always better than no reference.  x42bn6 Talk 17:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  University System 

message: I just realized (duh) those are annual and quarterly reports: they're approved by the SEC but they're written by DeVry. I think they're still valid references, but not for claims that lawsuits are "incidental" (which they don't exactly say, anyway). The legal proceedings section of the quarterly reports (10-Q) is almost an exact copy of that section in the annual reports (10-K), so I've stripped that reference. When using these references, make sure to cite a specific page number. Vagary 01:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  SEC Filings (10-K, 10-Q) 

message: I feel the graduate statistic claim didn't belong in the History section. WP:LEAD says that the lead should contain an explanation of notability, so I moved it there. And it turns out MSNBC article wasn't properly summarizing the original source (it's a tricky statistic to report: I'm not 100% happy about my copy). Vagary 00:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The controversy can be deemed notable and I think there was some consensus saying all schools were notable for some reason.  I feel it asserts its notability through its controversy and the graduate statistic - although the former is slightly depressing.  But then again, a lot of articles have made themselves notable through controversy (CoolWebSearch, for example).  x42bn6 Talk 17:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point: that statistic is not needed to prove a minimum standard of notability in the lead. However, it does speak to just how notable DeVry is and kind of explains why it has so much controversy (ie: it's a huge company). I think its valuable to a worldwide audience, at least until the Infobox has some enrolment statistics. Besides, it's an interesting statistic and I couldn't figure out what other section to put it in. :) Vagary 21:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Graduate Statistic 

message: An RFCU has confirmed that Digimons, DiogenesRex, and 24.90.244.160 are all sockpuppets of Codeplowed.  I have requested that all of the sockpuppets be banned.  Codeplowed's use of sockpuppets to confuse this Talk page and "stack the deck" against opposing editors is unethical and unacceptable.  I expect a public apology from him or her as we continue to work on this encyclopedia article in a collegial manner free from deception.  --ElKevbo 16:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe there is a need for apology although one would be nice.  We can continue working with or without an apology.  x42bn6 Talk 17:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Thank you kindly for yours and everyone else's work on this issue! I've summarized everything I think about future direction in the To-do list, and I believe a lot of the discussions are winding down, so I'd be happy with a full archive. If someone else thinks my comments in Talk:DeVry University#ABET Accreditation or Talk:DeVry University#Curriculum are particularly insightful, I won't be offended, but I was writing them to encourage constructive contribution, so they're no longer necessary. Vagary 04:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Codeplowed's Sockpuppets

message: Codeplowed has been blocked for a month, and the sockpuppet accounts blocked indefiniately.  The report is here on WP:AN/I.
I recommend archiving this talk page other than the current items you're discussing.  I've created a new archive page here:  /Archive 3 and added it to the Archive link box above.  
But I am not doing the archiving myself because I'm not familiar with your discussions. To do the archiving, just click the "edit this page" tab and copy the sections you want to archive - then paste them into the archive page. Be careful not to lose anything - when you've confirmed it's archived as you want it, then delete the duplicated text from this page.  
Good luck!  --Parzival418 Hello 03:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you kindly for yours and everyone else's work on this issue! I've summarized everything I think about future direction in the To-do list, and I believe a lot of the discussions are winding down, so I'd be happy with a full archive. If someone else thinks my comments in Talk:DeVry University#ABET Accreditation or Talk:DeVry University#Curriculum are particularly insightful, I won't be offended, but I was writing them to encourage constructive contribution, so they're no longer necessary. Vagary 04:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: blocked