User talk:CaliEd

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Welcome

Hello, CaliEd, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. 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 {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Kuru ^talk 03:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Israel News Agency AfD

Hi CaliEd,

I'm sorry, but I've had to move your opinion / vote in the Israel News Agency AfD to the Talk page here. You're welcome to participate in the discussion, but because of previous problems with sockpuppets on deletion debates involving this subject, the administrator overseeing the discussion (Geni) has taken the unusual (though understandable, in my opinion) step of semi-protecting the page from editing by new users and setting a minimum threshold of 150 edits for your opinion to be considered. Again, you are welcome to participate in the discussion and influence others, but when the "votes" are counted, yours will probably not carry much weight in this debate. Please continue contributing! I think you'll be unlikely to run into this problem again.--MikeJ9919 02:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tags on articles

If you put a neutrality or other tag on an article, you are not finished until you follow through with the specifics (on the talk page) on why you tagged it. If you don't do this, it is an improper tag and it will be removed. Thanks. Pollinator 03:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accreditation issue

I disagree. Will explain shortly at Talk:School accreditation. --Coolcaesar 04:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great, and bring sources. CaliEd 04:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accreditation issue

I already did explain, and had a source from a GOVERNMENT website. Please don't revert other people's SOURCED and EXPLAINED edits without providing an alternative source and explaining your revert. --Tim4christ17 21:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Tim" you used loaded terms such as putting "normal schools" in quotes and you removed a government source.[1] It is important to note that some states require accreditation and have exemption for religious schools, and that exemption is sometimes used by diploma mills. Tim4christ17 removed that cited fact. CaliEd 03:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trinity School of Apologetics & Theology and your accreditation crusade

I'm going to put this bluntly and concisely, you are out of line. This is not a reversion as you claimed in your edit summary. It is an insertion of your bias. You linked to school accreditation twice in the intro piping it with unaccredited and not accredited. You added links to Diploma mill, List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning and List of unrecognized accreditation associations of higher learning. You also added it to two different categories of unaccredited institutions. Whether you are right or wrong about its accreditation status, this edit is in no way a reversion. It is a wide swing in the POV of the article and given what else I've read above, seems to be a prime example of your bias. Please discuss the changes you made on the talk page of this article. With whom, you might ask. You should discuss it with the person you accused of blatant vandalism when they removed a non-neutral and weasel worded statement from the article. The same person you "reverted" by adding in your own bias. I have no vested interest on one side or the other of this dispute, but labeling India Gate's edit as "blatant vandalism" and warning them as such is unacceptable, especially when you followed it with that "reversion." This is a content dispute that should be worked out to a consensus on the talk page. Calling people who don't hold you POV vandals is bordering on a personal attack. Don't do it again.—WAvegetarian•(talk) 06:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The founder of the school, the accreditation "group," and another school has been doing this on a regular basis. See: International Council for Accrediting Alternate and Theological Studies. He uses a new account then disappears Lord_Eddington (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Gaby.abc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Third_Eye (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and many others. I take offense to people issuing college degrees to unqauilified people for money, and wikipedia should not be used to deceive people.

It is a reversion.[2]

The UNESCO database that lists ALL accredited schools in the world has this school missing from its India and US list.[3] there is no independent proof to claim it is accredited. You need proof to demonstrate UNESCO is wrong. CaliEd 19:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear CaliEd what others have done should not have caused you to attack me. I am not going to disappear as my interest is not specifically in Trinity but in India. I propse to make changes in Indian institutions to reflect an NPOV stand, and I am sure you will not be offended. About the UNESCO list you mention, it does NOT list even a small portion of the 10,000 accredited colleges we have in India. It is not as comprehensive as you think. The problem is, Indin system is totatlly different from the American system, and you should not insist that articles about India be US-centric. I am sure that you will see my borader interest in India, and that you will not press American POV on Indian institutions. I propose to make writings on many other Indian educational institutions NPOV, but want the editors to understand the difference. India Gate 02:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only "problem" is people who set up schools and then set up "accreditors to accredit that school." What's your proof that Trinity School of Apologetics & Theology is legit? CaliEd 04:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear CaliEd, let me try to see it from your perspective. I say so because as I was reading many edits made by you, and also many edits made by basically American editors about Indian institutions, I have become acutely aware that there is a serious problem of defnition. Most American editors, specially the newer ones on Wiki, seem to evaluate non-American institutions using US-centric definitions. This is not fair, and is a POV because USA is only one among the 170 or so many countries in the world. There is wide diversity in practices and definitions. So would you tell me what criteria you would want to use to establish that an institution is "legit" inside India. This definition would help me because -- let me reiterate -- my interest is in an NPOV representation of several Indian institutions on Wiki. A US-centric creterion for non US customs, cultures, and instituions -- I submit -- is POV. Wiki articles need to be NPOV not only for US editors, but also for people from the 170 or so many countries around the world.(As I said earlier, I will not touch your edits about American institutions because you know better about your country and if I imposte Indian criteria on them I will be guilty of imposing my POV). India Gate 08:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1) Your excuses sound very familiar as the ones here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johnson C. Philip (the deletion article of the founder of Trinity). 2)You have not provided any soures. My sources:

The UNESCO list of accredited schools in India.
Indian Department of Education directory of higher education, which lists accredited schools.
India University Grants Commission list of oversight groups.

The India University Grants Commission Act 1956 explains,

"the right of conferring or granting degrees shall be exercised only by a University established or incorporated by or under a Central Act, or a State Act, or an Institution deemed to be University or an institution specially empowered by an Act of the Parliament to confer or grant degrees. Thus, any institution which has not been created by an enactment of Parliament or a State Legislature or has not been granted the status of a Deemed to be University, is not entitled to award a degree."[4]

The Indian department makes clear: "It is emphasized that these fake institutions have no legal entity to call themselves as University/Vishwvidyalaya and to award ‘degree’ which are not treated as valid for academic/employment purposes."[5]

Seems cut and dry to me. Degrees without government recognition are not " valid for academic/employment purposes."CaliEd 20:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. None of your observations apply to religious education in India.

I have been going through all the edits you made, and notice that some kind of a battle is going on among Christian sects about which of their institutions is accredit and which is not. I use the term "battle" becuase you describe your work as "hit".

My interest is in India. I am not a Christian. I was drawn into this battle when I made edits to an Indian institution which happned to be Christian. However, I do not with to be part of this battle. You Christians are welcome to fight with each other and "hit" each other (your word) or destroy each other. I will confine myself to making contributions about India and other subjects which are of my primary Interest. I am proud of my motherland. India Gate 02:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still no proof of your claims? CaliEd 02:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accreditions

Hi,

I am unsure of the changes you made, which don't seem to make sense to me. You have added AICTE as a school accreditor, while I know it as an accredition council for technical education (college level). Even the link you provide speaks it as a part of high education system, which means college level. I believe this confusion was created because of differences in way things are referred to in India, as against the US (this part I am deducing from the discussion above). Also, I find the AICTE category too much misleading as the colleges are not a part of AICTE, the accredition being the only link. A better category would be Category:AICTE approved colleges and universities, though even that definition would cover nearly every technical college in India. There are only a handful of those that are not accredited by AICTE, so this separation looks like dividing the things in the world as bananas and non-bananas. I request you to undo the changes you made, as I find them misleading and inaccurate. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 13:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1) Yes, All India Council for Technical Education is part of education department and it accredits, according to the department.[6]

2) I don't understand your point. The schools are in the category because they are accredited by All India Council for Technical Education. If you click on the category it states "The following are schools under the supervision of All India Council for Technical Education." This is standard on wikipedia, for example, New England Association of Schools and Colleges has the schools it accredits in its catgeory, which is a subcategory of school accreditation. I guess if you have a problem with the categories of that name you should propose renaming all the accreditation categories, and not just that one.

3) The categories are for accreditation, and the schools accreditated by a certain group. The number shouldn't matter because it shows the accredited schools, and leaves out the non-accredited schools. In the New England Association of Schools and College category, that commission accredits 2,000+ schools, with only a few institutions not accredited by that body. CaliEd 19:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have completely missed my point. AICTE gives accredition to colleges and universities, and NOT schools. Please re-read the references and tell where you found the bit about giving accredition to schools. Higher education in India means colleges and universities, unlike the west. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 04:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Category doesn't state "schools," you are splitting hairs regarding. 17:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The category page clearly says: "The following are schools under the supervision of All India Council for Technical Education." Teh AICTE gives accredition to colleges and universities only. I hope I am clear with my objections now. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 19:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the name of the category, let me give you a situation. Suppose a college gives education with English as a medium. So would you add it to Category:English or Category:English medium collges. Although the category page clarifies what the category means, wouldn't it be better to make things clear in the category name itself. And yes, if there are other categories with similar confusing names, I would suggest renaming them. The source of confusion may arise as many private colleges are accredited by the AICTE. Seeing the AICTE category on their pages may lead people into thinking that they are government owned colleges as AICTE is controlled by the govt. We should make it clear in the category name itself that its about accredition only and not control. Adding article to AICTE category would, in my opinion, be very misleading. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 04:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I explained that this is standard for accreditation, and gave you examples. Looking at you edits I think I edited on WP:OWN of yours. CaliEd 17:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about WP:OWN. If it were, I would have reverted first and then argued. I can't understand why you aren't replying to the concerns raised by me. Also, New England Association of Schools and Colleges is an "association", so the accredited colleges are part of it. This is not the case with AICTE which is a "council", and not an association. It is very misleading to add such category name to the article on colleges. I am not against addition of category (though I am not happy about it), but I am against the name as it appears now because of the misleading nature. If you are not convinced by my explaination, I suggest we get a third opinion on this. I think a message to the Wikiprojects of universities/education would be safe and neutral option. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 19:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to suggest that CaliEd seems to be some kind of an American religious crusader who is using Wikipedia for his Christian religious crusades from a US-centric outlook. As part of it he seems to be indulging in a grand edit, but carefully checking his edits seems to show that rather than information it is some kind of a Christian sectarian fight for which he is building up a base here and there. Assuming this assessment is right, for which I invite comments from more senior editors, it is terrible to see people using Wikipedia for sectarian purposes. Wikipedia is not for crusades, religion, politics or POV. From time to time the language he uses here and there also betrays that he is using Wiki basically for religious activism, and not for NPOV contributions. All entries should be NPOV. His lack of perception about the Indian education system, and the way he is apparantly messing up classification also is disturbing for many of us contribute on India and Indian establishments. India Gate 05:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Helpme is for encyclopedia questions; I point both users to Request for Comment for getting other editors to weigh in. Te ke 05:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(To India Gate) While I agree there is a content dispute that may have resulted because of regional differences, I don't think this is a part of some "crusade", or something religiously motivated. I haven't gone into details of the theological school dispute, so I am not sure that there was any "crusade" there. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 05:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(To Ambuj. Saxena) I pointed to the crusade aspect because he threatened to block me for just one edit I made accidentally on an India-related Christian institution. I pulled out of editing any Christian institutions after that, but have been watchiin the edits of CaliEd out of curiosity. This curiosity was created by my question "why did he bite and threaten me for a single edit" and why did he charge me with "vandalism" for a single edit, an edit on a topic that I did not touch again. This is the reason why I keept watching him and made my observations known to you. I felt you might not have known these things. India Gate 06:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More: Trinity School of Apologetics & Theology (from a "new user")

Hello CaliEd, Thanks for the reply and I will try to be brief with my response. I did some investigating as you suggested and found the following information from the Internet...The information to which I referred in the edits was related to the National Consitution of India and certain Acts that were established for the purposes of minority-community populations within the country. I pulled this information is the Ministry of Human Resource Development http://www.education.nic.in/minority.asp under the Higher Education section of the website. The Act in question is The National Commission for Minority Educational Institution (Amendment) Act, 2004

I went to the link did it support the edits you made? No, it discussed minority populations. More directly, "Central assistance is being provided to State Governments for the appointment of Urdu language teachers on a normative basis in Block/Districts where there is a concentration of educationally backward minorities." Until you get sources that say "Trinity School of Apologetics & Theology" and the others are legit don't make the edits. The burdern of proof is on the person who wants to the claims in the article. CaliEd 06:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Act states that minority-communities within the country are entitled to be supervised by agencies outside the scope of the Education Department and the UGC so that all people will have the same opportunity to have access to higher education. The Act allows for the creation and operation of entities that will basically function as accreditation agents under the strict supervision of the State and Central Government.

Okay. Proof that Trinity School of Apologetics & Theology is part of this? CaliEd 06:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In addition I went to several websites listing the institutions which were considered blacklisted by several U.S. State Education Agencies that were listed in several of the articles posted in Wikipedia and the Trinity School of Theology and Apologetics nor ICAATS are not on their lists. I have no personal vendetta against you or others who have posted this information. I am only asking for fair representation of the information that is in the entry. I will seek to secure other documentation to further verify the information, however, it will be hard for you to argue against the Act of the National Constitution of India which in fact does support the existence of organizations like Trinity School and the organization which accredits them, namely, ICAATS...Thanks Tob55 02:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC) 11:55, 21 August, 2006[reply]

I am only asking for proof. The poor grammar on these websites aside, they are connected to an unaccredited "school" in California. Passing off the accreditation as legitimate is not going to be taken lightly without proof.

I find it interesting that so many new users find their way to these Trinity related schools to white wash them.

I could really care less if Trinity is legit or not. I care about the facts. The Indian database, UNESCO list, etc. show this place is NOT accredited. You can claim it is, so give us clear and direct proof. CaliEd 06:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for Facts and Cooperation

Really CaliEd, I have no intention of discrediting you or anyone else on this website. I only ask that if you are presenting information you consider to be factual, then make sure that it is accurate information. I would prefer to settle this with you rather than bring in an arbitrator. That would only result in you and I having animosity toward one another and that isn't accomplishing anything. If we can negotiate the discussion and come up with the factual information that would shed light on the actual standing of only two entities that I am addressing (Trinity School of theology and Apologetics/ ICAATS - the organization which accredits them) then my discussions on the subject would come to an end.

I see that others have been less than complimentary to you in their efforts to come to some reasonable resolve in this matter. I am not a person who engages in conflict with a kill or be killed attitude. Also, I really have only one account with Wikipedia, and it is the only one I have ever seen the need to have. All the correspondence to you in other areas of Wikipedia are simply copy and paste messages from the original I first sent to you. If there are people attacking you using multiple identities, I am sorry to hear that.

I feel the best way to resolve conflict is to be honest in what I do. You will not get a lot of rhetoric from me about which philosophy of education is better or not better. I am an educator by profession, and have spent a great number of years trying to improve my understanding of the whole state of education world-wide. My interests are in the recognition of "legitimate" educational entities around the world. Education is a privileged commodity that doesn't get nearly as much recognition as it should. So, in the spirit of communication and cooperativeness, I hope there is some way to work together with you to get the real facts out about Trinity School of Theology and Apologetics as well as ICAATS.

If you would like to have a Wiki arbitrator look at the facts you presented and those which are being gathered by officials from the two organizations you are challenging, then have a decision made, that would be fine with me. No harm, no foul. I just think that it would be better to make changes working together in cooperation rather than finding out that changes will be forced on you without any options. However, you must make this decision. I will await your response before making any other correspondence with others from Wiki. Thanks Tob55 22:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The User called "Christian Bible College"

He's still at it: [7]. A.J.A. 15:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll watch for more vandalism. CaliEd 16:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weasel Words in Unaccredited Template

CaliEd, can you take a look at the weasel words in the unaccredited template? I've brought this up on its talk page because I believe they should be changed.[8] Thanks, JD

Hello

CaliEd,

I edited your prior input to remove your addition of the University of Sarasota from the listing of unaccredited schools. The University of Sarasota was accredited by SACS Southern Association of Schools and Colleges.

When I attended classes at the Sarasota campus from 1995 - 1999, graduating with a doctorate in 1999, one of my primary criteria in selecting it was the fact that it was regionally accredited.

The University of Sarasota was merged with a couple of other schools into Argosy University a year or so after I left and it is now known as Argosy University - Sarasota. Argosy with its various campus locations is also regionally accredited but by the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools.

If you have questions or concerns regarding this, please call either:

Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (404)679-4512

or:

North Central Association of Colleges and Schools (312)263-0456

Best regards,

nickdayton

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of California Commission on Teacher Credentialing

The article California Commission on Teacher Credentialing has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence this is notable, borderline A7

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Star Mississippi 16:53, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]