User talk:FFGGGFFFF

Accreditation

Hi. I read your posts and do appreciate you comments. My sole interest and efforts in this matter is to move PWU off of this list. I don't know why its on that list, but its there. Once PWU is off that list, I'll be moving onto something else. As for the two PWU articles, I believe that both you and I are on the same page. Deleting them will work against your objective. Please read them over again in the collective and I think you will see what I mean.-- Jreferee 14:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can start by reinserting it is NOT ACCREDITATED, and its degrees do not have to be accepted by ANY employer ANY where. FFGGGFFFF 20:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is in response to your post on my talk page, "Sockpuppet? Is there nothing you'd stoop to for white washing this NOT ACCREDITED place? The alumni you listed is pitiful. FFGGGFFFF 20:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)"

A sock puppet is an additional username used by a Wikipedian who edits under more than one name. As for getting things done on Wikipedia, feel free to challenge the work and change the work, but don't attack the person. For example, The creator of these categories has tried to confused the BPPVE with school accreditation is an attack on me; These categories confused the BPPVE with school accreditation challenges the work. I kept saying to myself, 'I see his point and it appears valid, but why is he attacking me?' Wikipedia has a guideline called Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Basically, it says for each of us to assume that most people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it. By the several statements you posted about me (and then repeated by others), you assumed I was trying to hurt the PWU project. The assumption did not meet the Assume good faith guidelines. That is not appropriate. Also, you had many good ideas but you never actually edited the PWU article with them. You could have changed my work but did not. I'm very happy with the changes made by others. In the future, be bold in updating pages. As for the PWU list, the alumni listed was a list of pitiful people because that is what the research brought out. The list of PWU people was a list of liars, frauds, cheats, criminals, prisoners (even a child molester), and the rich and powerful essentially buying Ph.D.s. The list included people innocently getting PWU degrees only to later find themselves in legal trouble because of that degree. You could have found high quality notable people with PWU degrees and put them on the list. I couldn't find any and the list reflected my research. Favoring PWU and wanting to protect its image by concealing facts is no basis to have an unbiased list deleted. -- Jreferee 14:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting first month

Hi. Welcome to Wikipedia. I see you've had an interesting first month.

In the future, you may want to temper your remarks a bit:

"A list of nobodies without wikipedia articles who got their "degrees" from an unaccredited school- alleged diploma mill. Created by Jreferee (talk • contribs) who has an agenda and needs to be watched. For the few people who do have articles are like Doris Brougham, an online resume with no wikinotability."

You could just as easily have written:

"A list with too many non-notable persons, many lacking wikipedia articles, who got their "degrees" from an unaccredited school and alleged diploma mill. Some others on the list such as Doris Brougham may have articles but these are problematic and some demonstrate no wikinotability."

I know Jreferee has put in a lot of work on the whole Pacific Western University article; I'm not sure I've seen him pushing a pro-administration POV. At the time you wrote [1]:

"Jreferee is pushing POV. For example, where does it state the place is not accredited? Where does it state these degrees may not be acceptable to employers? I see he left out the unaccredited category. FFGGGFFFF 10:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)"[reply]

... the then-proposed article version[2] covered PWU's diploma mill issues extensively. You could just as easily have added the degree-acceptability and exact accreditation language yourself.

In fact, "be bold" and go add some text to the proposed article that you think would be appropriate.

I know you're new here; you may find these helpful:

You'll get the hang of all this after you've been around a litte while.

In any event, welcome to Wikipedia!

--A. B. ^(talk) 00:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]