Talk:DeVry University/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Request for Comments

I've listed this page on WP:WQA and WP:RFC. Please keep comments here short, civil, and constructive! Vagary 00:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment. The article shows a variety of non-neutral viewpoints and most of the content is unsourced. The bigger problem is on this talk page. It seems that many of the editors posting here so far have not learned how to format their comments or sign their posts. When I first arrived I found that many sections were in large text boxes with words too wide for the screen because the lines were started with blank space, like this:

This is how it looks when a line starts with a blank space.  If it's a paragraph it spills over the edge of the page.

That made the page almost unreadable, so I removed many of those extra spaces and now the text is readable. But the discussions are still hard to follow. It seems like everyone is talking and no-one is listening.

I recommend avoiding essay-like discussions on the talk page. If you see a problem with the article, go ahead and make the edit. Find reliable references and include them with your edits. For controversial edits, or edits that someone else reverts, discuss calmly on the talk page. Focus on the content and the references, not the other editors.

I suggest reviewing some of these important guidelines:

• Wikipedia:Assume good faith
• Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages
• Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle
• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
• Wikipedia:Consensus
• Wikipedia:Verifiability

I hope you find this comment helpful. --Parzival418 03:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment. In light of the issues with many comments on this Talk page, I would like to propose archiving it, so that this space can be used to discuss edits explicitly. Vagary 08:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome - glad I could help out a bit. I think archiving is a good idea, to make a new start. You can find instructions for doing the archiving here: Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page. I recommend retaining the 'talkpage' template at the top of the page that shows instructions for using the page. By the way, I don't know if you saw it yet, -- there is another response from your noticeboard postings a couple sections below this one that has some additional supportive comments. Good luck with improving the article! --Parzival418 09:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank You All!

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)

NPOV and Commenting

Codeplowed has expressed his ideas, you are commanding this user/editor to do what you think is right and this user is doing what he or she thinks is right.

I don't think is smart that vagary tell to Codeplowed or any of us in here what to do, how to write and how to present an argument, you can suggest or better do it and show us by example, I do no read in here either. I have only observed impositions, demands and ownership, probably these people are bringing the corporate aptitude in here, I do not think you will win this time and not in here. I would ask you to behave.

Because the nature of any discussion is precisely to find multiple points of view, Be BOLD and edit and present the sources that you think are missing but do not called harassment!, to what, I think, based on my reading, it is a very crucial and insightful contribution from Codeplowed, I know more people will come to this page and will be gain consensus.

I guess those people will see this issues with their own "eyes" and so they will write about it or you too can do this, but please leave the comments of CodePlowed of any other user in Wikipedia Talk pages "as is", I think you can add to it or better be contrapuntal about it. Codeplowed has done with exactly that with yours so why you do not try it for once, we can see and evaluate your history much better in this way.

This lead me to user:vagary's contribs and the user who appear to sign as "Otterzero" or with the IP address 208.0.29.250, who claim to be an employee and a student of this institution in question, although, I have visited the link that http://ihatedevryforum.com and I found terrible information in there about DeVry, and other numerous blogs and reports as well, that seem worth to report and describe in context in this encyclopedia, like it or in some what similar as it has been articulated by Codeplowed.

Now lastly, and really troublesome and with a closer inspection of the historical "inputs" on record, I analyzed that the so-self-called Devry student/employee has tried to persuade, privately communicate by extending an IM invitation and then even intimidate and discourage Codeplowed from contributing in the way that he/she thinks it fits the subject and the content, this IP-user has made some assumptions and even has told Codeplowed how and what to do. This is an unacceptable behavior, you present your ideas, you do not, do not imposed your ideas, Do your teachers teach that in DeVry?.

Whomever is using this IP address seem obvious that he/she is trying to manipulate and affirm things in a way that are not other way than that the ways that characterized masqueraded vandals, especially, when they do not get what they want. The fact that this 208... or otterzero or whatever does not sign properly their contribs and the way he is trying to achieve his/her ways denoted the lack of respect, that actually this user has and exhibits, for The WikiMedia as a Whole and for anybody who contribute in here. Now, Codeplowed has sign all his comments and has denounced those who repeatedly has violated the verifiability and although has rectified his contribs, in a reasonably matter and presenting links and information that I and others have verified.

Vagary, which by the way is an insulting username with an obvious hidden agenda, and others like him are seemed to be writing as defending the indefensible, Also the Cuomo investigation is being in process in New York about the subjects that Codeplowed has indicated are not yet including the name of DeVry, at least on the articles that I had read, and ABET has a WikiPage that indicates some criticisms about the way they have to accredit organizations; this is all very important because of those same reasons that have been landscaped by Codeploewed and everyone should have the freedom to be reading them, as has pointing out by many in others sites over the Internet, I have happen to find, for instance, read [http://planetmath.org/?op=getmsg&id=14372 nOSENSE. I think, we all need to ponder in what Codeplowed is plowing or stating and reflect upon and improve by perhaps modify it but not by deleting it, I do not think so. It is Recommended good will for our educators, institutions, and students, we need them but some time we need to oversee them closely much closely and of course it is not part of an entry but behind the scenes precisely in those discussion pages, or tell me where then at DeVry or in the Supreme Court?. Please Codeplowed continue your willfully duties. 24.90.244.160 04:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I apologize if you felt intimidated by my request to contact you via email or IM -- I was trying to follow the Wikipedia:Resolving disputes guidelines found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes. I can see how my posting semi-anonymously may have seemed insincere, so I have created an account for future editing. As per the guidelines on Negotiation at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Negotiation, I would like both of our points of view (and those of anyone else who wishes to edit the article) to be part of this article. As it says on that page, "Objective criteria such as accuracy, reliability, and fair representation of all significant points of view can be used as participants in a dispute to work toward solutions." My only concern is keeping focused on those objective criteria in editing this, or any other, article. 208.0.29.250 13:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)OtterZero

Please assume good faith. Until today, after I said there was nothing wrong with the IP address editing the article as long as he/she followed the guidelines at WP:COI. And, quite frankly, they have every right to speak on the talk page. While this University may have had its bad points (I'm sure every University has them), is it neutral to only speak of it? Is it right for this user to harass other users because they are part of the institution?

Regarding that link: It doesn't work for me, but even if it did, I can deduce it is a website against this University. Then ask yourself, can this be used as a neutral source? Yes, it can, if that source has its own references. Otherwise, it cannot be considered reliable.

One thing I have noticed is that this article is unbalanced. It feels like an attack page to me. Everyone is welcome to edit this article, but everyone must assume good faith, stay civil and keep calm. x42bn6 Talk 16:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments

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)

Edits to remove non-NPOV stuff and advertising

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)OtterZero

Poor reversion

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)OtterZero

Request for comments

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)OtterZero

Quick cleanup

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)

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)OtterZero

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)

suggestions

It's good to see the significant improvements on this page, congratulations on getting a positive editing process going.

My suggestion is that now that the page looks more calm and less negative, it might be a good idea to add a section of the page for Criticisms of the company and/or its methods. I have no knowledge about this topic at all, I'm only making this suggestion because previously there was a lot of that in the article, but it was mixed in with the other information.

I wonder if you don't provide a crticisms section, then it may be that the complaints begin to be mixed into the general text again. I believe there have been complaints about the company, so it seems appropriate to provide a place for them to bve disucssed (with references of course). That would also help to keep the NPOV approach good and solid.

As a lesser issue, just cosmetic, I agree with the comment above that the list of campuses is a bit much, though it could be useful for someone wanting to find a campus in their city. Maybe it would be good to move that section to the bottom of the article (just above the references section). There are ways the list could be made visually smaller too,or made into table format, though I'm not a Wikimarkup expert so I have no suggestions on how to do that. As it is now though, it interrupts the article; many people might stop reading at that point because it seems like something that would come at the end of the text. --Parzival418 19:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The reason a lot of criticism was apparent was because two (large) paragraphs were duplicated.  :-/ But I agree, this subject appears to have negative points - and there are references for it - in fact, I think there is the problem that there are no "positive" references and almost no neutral ones. x42bn6 Talk 20:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with your comments. I thought a separate section for that would be good to clarify the organization of the article. But clearly, there are holes in the information that will need to be filled in over time.

Thanks for your help with this article. --Parzival418 20:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Good-bye for now

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)

Talk Page Formatting

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)

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)

Thank you for archiving, Parzival418! Vagary 07:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

To-Do List

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)

Alberta Class Action

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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).

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)

On Wikipedia Page Discussions

Fine, your work for DeVry, you are a dear friend of one who works for DeVry, what about the thousands of families that have been in one way or other victimized by DeVry? Who cares you thought that you can just come in here and make a cheap add into Google, this definitely is not the place. This page have been vandalized by hidden its contents in an archive file without getting consensus of any of the participants and still is not intact as it was. Yes Alberta, Alberta, what about California; in January 2002, Royal Gardner, a graduate of one of DeVry University’s Los Angeles-area campuses, filed a class-action complaint against DeVry Inc. and DeVry University, Inc. in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, on behalf of all students enrolled in the post-baccalaureate degree program in Information Technology. Why do not read? "The total accrual for the resolution of all pending legal claims and for final payment on claims previously resolved was approximately $1.6 million at the end of fiscal 2006." Yes, DeVry Inc. fight against the unions and the right of its employees to have a more security at their jobs, yes DeVry University fight squarely against its professors, contract then at will and do whatever it wants with them, and do yes what is Academic Freedom or privacy for DeVry Inc.

DeVry University will continue fighting until the evidence preponderance's weight will become so heavy in the mind of the authorities and so far from reasonable doubt that you are the ones that will end without jobs and because you have not skills then you will be unable to find another job and soon then you will find out what DeVry Inc. will be able to do for you and your family members (holding all that personal information on you).

The sad thing is that you are aiding the wrong people perhaps for a good cause[preserving your jobs and for your families]. DeVry Inc. want to fight, as the slavery institutions did back centuries ago, because of greedy since there were many ways to make money in those days as it is nowadays; think about it! and look at your hands and look why your are writing and encyclopedic history and what kind of effects is having and will have in future generations and the generations that are looking for decent and neutral information.

Unfortunately, I do not have evidence of the contrary about DeVry Inc. The evidence that we have received is strong and there is plenty of it and it comes from many sources, evenly too "fresh" that somehow needs to be compiled adequately to be cited as a source in here or in anyplace. But we are working to present DeVry Inc. "As is" No more, but not less either, As is my friend, It is and entry that will portrait DeVry and its "ring" of associate, how it is called? its modus operandi.

Finally, it seems that a user is changing the source documentation with the purpose to obscure the veracity or the location of the reports from the general public. This is called vandalizing, you know? why you going and help Capella University and start to defend the indefensible as well in there or working in the genocide page and argue that the evidence is poor or seem to be misplaced just careful, there are many of us that will immediately jump to show that effectively there is a lot of evidence on this issue. -Veritas Longa 22:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Source. Give us sources. And Wikipedia is not for your own personal battleground nor your own personal ideology on this article. Wikipedia is here to give readers a balanced view of the University, and not every single lawsuit thrown at it. Which is why I split the controversy into a new section. The lead section is supposed to summarise the article, and this is supposed to be the most neutral because this is what is mostly read.

Does it matter that this University receives lots of criticism? At the end of the day, it is still a University, people still go there to learn and they graduate with their qualifications. Whether they agree with the course or not is irrelevant. Fine, this University has had lawsuits filed against it - we have mentioned this in the article - but if it was not doing an ounce of good, people would not go there.

And please stop removing the talk page banner. This page might get a lot of traffic one day and it serves no purpose not to remove it at the moment. x42bn6 Talk 23:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Archiving is not vandalism:"This page have been vandalized by hidden its contents in an archive file without getting consensus of any of the participants and still is not intact as it was." - Archiving of talk pages is a routine maintenance procedure. I created /Archive 2 of this article. All of the information is still available with a single click, in the "Archives" box near the top of this page. There was a technical problem when another editor first tried the archiving process, that resulted in /Archive 1 being incomplete. So I corrected this with the second archive and added a clear note at the top of the archive to explain why there is some duplication between the two. Archive 2 is complete, with all text prior to the first entry on this talk page. To make absolutely sure I did not lose any text at all, I did not make any changes to Archive 1. I left it as is, in case there may have been a comment there that was previously removed from the main page.

Now that this has been corrected, the archive pages must not be edited. If you want to comment about anything stated on an archived page, you can comment on the main talk page and link to the archive, or copy the text you want to quote. But do not change the archives.

Nothing is hidden or taken away, all of the discussions on this article are still easily available to all. --Parzival418 20:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Talk banner removal?

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)

Appears to be a revert plus the section above. x42bn6 Talk 23:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

University of Phoenix

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)

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)

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)

[Main Page] Talk:DeVry University

(Difference between revisions) Main Page | Recent changes | Log out |

Early registration for Wikimania 2007 is open. The Call for Participation is open until April 30. [dismiss] Printable version | Disclaimers | Privacy policy | Current revision | You have new messages (last change). Revision as of 18:10, 24 April 2007 (edit) X42bn6 (Talk | contribs) (→DeVry Behavior is on record in this Wikipedia - Do NOT harass other users on Wikipedia. If you want to bring up an issue, go to WP:AN/I.) ← Older edit Revision as of 18:15, 24 April 2007 (edit) (undo) X42bn6 (Talk | contribs) (→Exposing and sharing yes but Imposing Never - Remove personal attack) Newer edit → Line 154: Line 154: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Codeplowed (talk • contribs)

ABET Accreditation

The list of ABET accredited engineering programs includes 16 campuses. DeVry has 23 major campuses (maybe that's increased since Electronics Engineering Tech is offered at 25 campuses). Someone needs to make a table listing those 23 major campuses, what name DeVry operates under at those location (should be DIT in NY and AB), what its ABET (/CTAB) status is at each, and any other vital information. Given how useless DeVry's campus search tool is, that someone is not going to be me. (This would be a welcome contribution by someone with a conflict of interest - hint, hint.) Vagary 05:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's the kind of table I had in mind (open to many stylistic alternatives):

Location	Institution	Opened	ABET?1
Arlington	University	1982	Yes
Calgary	Institute of Technology	1996	No2
Boise	University	2003	No
...	...	...	...

¹ Accreditation status of computer and electrical engineering technology programs. (Ref ABET's site) ² Accredited at the technologist level by CTAB. ref

I think the list of major campuses will be useful in the future, but I'd also be interested to see an explanation of why not all 23 are accredited. :) Vagary 21:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why not although sources are always useful as well regarding date of accreditation. x42bn6 Talk 01:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

You have the a link to the official page of DeVry Inc. what you can do is to mention its programs as all this have been done but you can do it in a better format, perhaps.-Veritas Longa 00:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree! If nothing else, we can present information of public interest (for watchdogs as much as anyone else) in a more accessible manner than on the company page. Vagary 00:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for "your" Comments

Excuse me! can I interject? and then is a bit long but giving some actions it needs to be. Calm Down now, my objective it is always neutrality, DeVry's Content were improve but lately have been the worst page I have ever seen thanks to some attitude and we ought to change it. -Veritas Longa 14:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

People remove criticism for no reason: we put it back. People remove criticism for a good reason: We assume good faith and allow it. The same goes for the nice parts, too. x42bn6 Talk 15:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

This is put first because the chronological order was disrupted by the frequently and unnecessary archiving initiated by some user at this point is on record and does not matte who did or why he did and so often. You don't like "some" of what you read write "some" here is not place to revert or call "personal attack" to all of the written material that is not of your fancy. Respect different [POV] points of view in here. [I spelling the acronyms for readers that are not used to the Wikipedia jargon and who want to analyze what is happening in here.] -Veritas Longa 14:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Different points are view are always welcome but these points of view must allow for the article to become more balanced, NPOV. At the moment, the article is more negative than positive, in fact, which says we need more "good stuff". x42bn6 Talk 15:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I am sure you will find a way to "Digimonized" Wikipedia. For example,the only "good stuff" about slavery is that some people were getting rich while others were dying and tortured and the children of their children, What was good about a directorship, what is good or positive about killing, what is good about prostitution and on and on and on. Look I do not have time for educating you, but you have go and research, I am not telling you what to do but if you want to know something neutrally do you research but look for verifiable information. I personally do not have nothing against DeVry Inc. But the institution that DeVry Inc. has created for educating our Youth and now adults. There is not good stuff coming for DeVry Inc. It is dangerous for our nation, of course you live in England what do you care about it US.-Veritas Longa

Godwin's Law → you lose! Vagary 20:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Let us this time Mike Godwin's likelihood to be wrong and in this thread make it to approach zero, well what can you hope, to hear from you? only the winning and losing mentality, go beyond than that, I do not think anybody is about losing or winning in here, just to have the power to do something greater than themselves, does is why you are dong it, right? -Veritas Longa 21:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

D'oh! Just so people don't think Vagary is crazy, let the record show that all references to Hitler were edited out. However, it occured past the invocation of Godwin's Law. OtterZero 21:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Nobody say all you contributors. It has been stated clearly in the subjunctive case, "if", therefore if and only if you are contributor and it happens that you are a DeVry's employee, then, seriously consider to go and work for somebody else. Yes, I is Codeplowed stupid opinion but what am I writing this in here? -Veritas Longa 14:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Who are you to say that people who work for DeVry should work for someone else? And why is it that "iff"? I don't understand why only employees who are contributing to this article should consider working for somebody else. Per WP:COI, they are allowed to edit the article but should exercise great caution in doing so. x42bn6 Talk 15:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

For the many IPs adding content and by the same writing of some of them declaring that they were either employees, or students or both, by analyzing their writing and inputs and interactions on the web, perhaps you are one. Regardless, some students and other people are busy in trying their money back that do no have time to come and write to you about it but eventually as the blogs increase they would come and help to portrait DeVry "as is" either good or bad, either more or less, "as is" for what I am very happy is you can yourself find verifiable information.

http://www.jobster.com/at/company/DeVry+University 24.90.244.160 20:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a bulletin board-type thing - which is not a reliable source because comments are non-attributable (at least by Wikipedia's standards). See WP:RS.

And quite frankly, I do not understand why you are accusing me of favouring DeVry. I saw a legitimate request at one of the Village Pumps, I took offence to your comments on "WikiImpostor" and what I deemed harassment, so I took out the paragraphs (which were duplicated anyway). I then cleaned up the article as is my usual job on Wikipedia. Then:

• Some information was removed about a lawsuit - I said it would be a lot better to say there was a suit but it was dismissed, with a source, although its correctness wasn't fully established. Still, a source can be found.
• You then put some information in the lead section, which I took out, removed the original research and put into another section because it was becoming apparent controversy was a part of this University. You then put the information back without removing it from the new section I made and I removed it. I did not feel like that version was advertising at all - it did not promote anything about the University at all. The sheer lack of description of the University itself compared with the criticism, in fact, made the tag wholly inappropriate!

--> It is not better Lawsuits and Class actions are different, secondly, I called those who were identify as WikiImpostors because the were vandalizing the entry and other entries, like the one from scientology from a Range of IP address located in one Devry Campus as the archive 1 or 2, now I don't know even where it is but we can find it, shows, you probably erased something without contemplation and then you were caught and put as WikiImpostor, but this was solved as you were for some reason not anon and start to show up. Other user even amended his/her ways declare the self as DeVry's employee and student and ask for help, reasonable, then went of and change almost everything without any concern for yours, mine or anybody's contribution, now that is vandalizing, since that events you have been also changing things as you please and many things have been accepted by my and others. Vagary is happy about your contribs. and you are happy about Vagary, you probably are one and the same but who cares. -Veritas Longa 01:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• You then changed a source. I reverted it because the 10-K document was a massive bunch of text. If I was a reader, and I saw this as a source, it would be the equivalent of having nothing at all. Why? Because it is impossible to find the information! What you have to do is put a section or page number in the source as well - {{cite web}} has information on how to do that. In fact, I specifically said that the 10-Q document would do FOR NOW, but that would mean that you could change it back with a page number or something - I left a comment on your talk page, too.

• Look, that document is hyperlinked there is not reason for not adding 10-K Item 3 that correspond to the Lawsuits as class actions. Does it.

• An anon didn't like the logo for some reason so I put a proper logo in which is not easy to find. But I don't think there was anything wrong with the previous logo other than the fact it had a slogan below it - which still qualifies it under fair use because it is not promoting anything. Be careful fare use has many connotation, as this moments seems to be fine but we do not know, of course in this case DeVry is more than happy to have a logo in Wikepedia and by the way the should have one, but there always concerns with images and logos that comes from the mindset of the intellectual property people and corporations. -Veritas Longa 01:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not feel that ANY of these edits suggest I am a DeVry employee. And, quite frankly, it shouldn't matter if they are unless you establish them using Checkuser. You constantly suggest that there are DeVry employees working against the article at the same time and you claim that people with similar edits might be sockpuppets of them. However, sockpuppetry is permitted - it is only when it becomes disruptive when sockpuppetry is bad.

Sockpuppetry is always bad talk to Eric Raymond about it, he will explain you why, now who cares if you are or will be a DeVry employee, that is not the case, the case is that you need to understand that you can use Wikipedia to describe something that it is not and never has been and then impose how things ought to be written just to fit your fancy and hide your "dudes"

I don't feel I am imposing any of my views on the article at all. I have no views on this article - I have never heard of it prior to this article. And what does he have to do with it? x42bn6 Talk 01:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I welcome DeVry employees or PR people to work on the article with us to provide a balanced account of the article. They can help find sources on the University itself and clarify information we might not know, by directing us to information. There is nothing wrong with that.

I am not Jimbo, to welcome anybody in here but if you come and want to add lies or hide lies and present false information, I don't care if you are Henry VIII, or DeVry's President, I won't take it, and you also shouldn't, you see in Wikipedia there are not interest of who you are or where you came from, the interest could be self-promotion, nothing wrong with that when you are an artist and yes why not you have something to let people know about you, other thing when you are talking about institutions that want to use Wikipedia as Google links, and that capture they called recruit, I have a better word, trap students, now even they want to do it online. Therefore, if an employee comes add something that is plausible, alright but as you see many come to add advertising and nonsense, comparing it courses in BPS with Real engineering course that is misleading by the naked eye. We need to establish the difference, to the reader, and also present all the facets of this or any organization currently in business, why not? then, after the information is available then the reader could make a clear decision about it. Let us work on that with DeVry employees, and those who are not also. Content.

There has been a couple of occasions where some stuff has been removed and I reverted it - but there was one occasion where it was unsourced content - which is fine to remove. x42bn6 Talk 01:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you stop accusing people of sockpuppetry and strongly suggest you drop your vendetta against people who appear to be DeVry employees. They have every right to edit the article as you do although they have the additional burden of WP:COI. So far, there has been little resistance to criticism removal which is a good thing.

sockpuppetry is a bad thing you need to return my entries honor the dicussion.

WP:SOCK#Legitimate uses of multiple accounts. And I know a sysop who has multiple accounts for security reasons, but only one has sysop abilities. x42bn6 Talk 01:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

There is, however, resistance by you to keep soapboxing comments on this talk page - even you admit it is soapboxing. It is not permitted and it is not vandalism to remove what is not warranted. Just as DeVry University employees are allowed to remove unsourced accusations.

I never admitted doing that, I wrote that is it not a good idea, I explain to you that we need to show resistance to exploiters and vandals. Antagonizing that behavior is not Soapboxing is protecting the content and confront those who are not helping in th process of "neutralizing" which I explain in this case is presenting the facts. The documentation has, I you have seen, started to talk and is talking. Why because people are reading us. That why some users wanted to archive and archive this page, they do not want us to discuss their behavior. Accuser that are Accusing of the violation that they themselves commit that is one of the tactic that thy use to brainwash and alienate people, student and not the reader of wikipedia, nope, I don't think so you believe this but when the time comes you won't allow it. For that I am already sure.

Of course I resist vandalism. But not all edits to this page are vandalism, although you may see it differently. I see content dispute - you see censorship. x42bn6 Talk 01:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

As for this thought of yours suggesting that blogs will eventually "expose" DeVry, very well, let them do it. I'm not bothered. These blogs can't be linked to Wikipedia anyway as it is not attributable nor are they reliable. If a reputable newspaper does a report on the University, then it can be linked (and I would like it to, irregardless of whether it is praising the University or otherwise). x42bn6 Talk 21:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Correct but bear in mind that they did already and entry in this regard not too long in TV, Blogs are good way to measure information at first hand. but for now newspapers, be careful DeVry pay advertising and there are articles that just are advertising and also in TV, I am talking the press reporting Class action against DeVry Inc. there many and there are of interest, why because they have been filed by Students and parents. -Veritas Longa 01:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

If a newspaper A is a reliable source, it should not run paid articles. Those are fine. x42bn6 Talk 01:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Section break (in case editors run into edit conflicts editing the whole section)

DeVry Inc.is not anymore a case, it is issue and it is not a joke. DeVry University is maturing in what finally is, and agonizing malady for our education system in the united States and there are a lot of Official reports and people who actually do not have the voice or the means to ventilate this more conspicuously to the public and more importantly to the press. -Veritas Longa 14:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

And is Wikipedia morally bound to expose how bad a University it is? Yes, it is subject to a lot of criticism, partially because of the nature of this business, but take a look at what I found here:

As one of the largest degree-granting higher education systems in North America, DeVry University provides high-quality, career-oriented associate, bachelor's and master's degree programs in technology, business and management. Approximately 49,000 students are enrolled at its 72 locations that are in 21 states and Canada, as well as through DeVry University Online. DeVry University, a division of DeVry Inc. (NYSE:DV), is based in Oakbrook

---

Terrace, Ill. For more information about DeVry University, visit http://www.devry.edu. -Veritas Longa 00:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

---

Do it, accept your responsibility, cross it out, that is adverting in here is like 'blasphemy -Veritas Longa 01:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

you could do it and nobody did it as well, what this all means? -Veritas Longa 00:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Putting a link in here is not advertising because I am using it to illustrate a point. I could argue that writing "DeVry" is advertising. It is not. x42bn6 Talk 01:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

This University cannot be as bad as you think it is. It has good points. It offers a service to the community. It has bad points. All of this can be mentioned in the article.

what really do you know about it? you need to do your home work an accuser is not a good detective think -Veritas Longa 00:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

If you wish to vent out your bad points about the University, you should consider a different medium of approach other than Wikipedia. Consider public awareness campaigns, protests, or even blogs - but a neutral site is hardly going to be the best approach. x42bn6 Talk 15:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I would not that the cited document is a DeVry press release and thus a very poor example of "someone saying good stuff about DeVrey." Your general point is valid; you just picked a poor example. :) --ElKevbo 15:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Elkevo but your also has accussed me and even seen a violation you did not do much about it. Your credibility is zero for me continue, fighting vandalism and not learning why you did with me and not with others. -Veritas Longa 00:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

→ Again! please X42bn6, I am imploring you and kneeling begging for you to come into the few senses that you still have by now, do not take out that link Devrywhatever but cross that out! come on! you can do it, you can do it! you have the guts, or it is that you really do not? it happens that you cannot rv yourself? Is that the case then you have to go to wikimania I am not Wikidoctor so you have to remove your "dues". -01:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

What do you have against a link that is on the article already? I am using the link to justify a point. Why not argue I am advertising biohealthmatics.com? Or if I put a Google search up, why not argue I am advertising Google? I am not advertising DeVry. x42bn6 Talk 01:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

yes you put a press realese only to exacerbate the case and accuse some more because that is your job, Wiki accusation, you didn't solve nothing just accusing, becaus again you think I called Digimon and explain to you I did not, that why I have coined this term Digimonazing. -Veritas Longa 00:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

codePlowed-1

O yes is bad as being in hell, I will post many descriptions in here but really I would like you to find it for yourself, I am sure is pretty scary. What this people is doing. Well again, showing what DeVry Inc. has to say about DeVry is an advertising and rather very poor Judgment, it is not what you say, or they say or I say, it is about documented and verifiable information, You should cross out, do not delete it this entry, so you remember how wrong you were and how disrespectfully you behavior was when writing about and responding to Codeplowed. Who is taking time for illuminating you, Now the mantra is simple, Wikipedia is morally bound because pretends to embrace all knowledge, so the deep question,is epistemological in nature, what kind the knowledge we want in here?

fictional example

For example, suppose we were living in time of Mussolini, and I am opposed to the and his racist and fascist ideas, then I write about my position on them, that his is not good and need to go out of power and bla, bla; then you would tell me that we can get not even close to him because he is in power, he is doing good things, Like giving people work, and you go and argue this is not the place to talk about Mussolini, please do not do it, and I evenly write and say Mussolini is really bad and evenly more finally I signed it. You got mad, now you talk to some fascists, they do look like normal for you, well because you are young and they have the power and you do not better or they do things that you like, or just because, you don't believe in what I am writing. With this attitude you got get and accuse me and vandalize my writings and they finally kill and finally the fascist will take the power and the world would end to be ....what?

CP-2

Of course you may argue, you are comparing Mussolini or slavery with Devry, Nope I don't, I compared the Freedom of giving you my ideas to find solutions, to gain neutrality in how we depict any entry that is "alive". Hitler, we know what we know now about the whole thing but still there are people around there that, for instance, are saying that the holocaust never happen, and now there are many people that believe in that crap and have an international convention on this mere topic, Do yo believe this? If these filmed and well documented events are not too easy to understand and fast to masquerade, how you without knowing very well and living out of this country or doing a serious meditative inquiry, can say "it never happens" or Devry is not "too bad". Look, now that is beyond me. And All for the sake of "your" adding "good stuff" because it [the entry] needs to be balanced out, what is this line of thought? so it look nice for some fascists or people of other kind alike? Readers read Wikipedia because they know the can edit it when they see something that is not valid. Are you want to input fictitious cases just you think is a good idea to embellish an entry with "good stuff"? I you do then you are aiding causes that do not have nothing to do with the aims of the Wikipedia. "Recompiled all this deep in your soul."

Well all the same, you claim this you claim that, X42bn6 and other IP address and names, you didn't do your homework in this subject, that is all, do it now, so it takes time but if your really adamant abut DeVry's goodness then by all means, find accountable information. I am looking for it several and long years too and I can't find conclusively any of it. Here, "neutral" in an entry doesn't mean good or bad, or positive or negative goes beyond this. An entry is and Entry "as is" described by reputable sources, and that sources needs to be interpreted with neutrality too. OK So Research, and Learn it is a good Subject, "DeVry Inc. history and its idiosyncratic business practices" and don't write down to people you don't know -Veritas Longa 19:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course Wikipedia is not a Soapbox and it is bad idea to attack anything in here, agree 100% with you, but also is not the panacea of marketers and Sales representative or Antediluvians executives who do not care for what education means for AMERICA more precisely at this globalized and singular historical time-space. What they do care is about the dollars that these business represent for their pockets. What are creating a lot of problems and in part if why are job are going to China and India nowadays, we do not have well trained people fast enough for our needs. DeVry's Model is not an answer is one of the problem. They are not in the business of Education, the are in the business of students loans. These executive, and you know it, are accountable to the people of this country, and DeVry Inc, or DeVry University should be accountable and face the scrutiny of the respective authorities, the different publics and the press. -Veritas Longa 14:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

That's your opinion, and I respect that, but that should not come into the article at all. Not unless you publish that work with a reliable source and you yourself are a notable writer. x42bn6 Talk 15:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for respecting my opinion, but this is a discussion talk page, and if I write this in here because the behavior exhibit in the edition of this entry, and for making sure that we gain "Neutrality" anyway, I feel much better, probably one day you will read what I wrote, but it is not my interest to be in here for personal gain, as you might see, also I have not personal vendetta, there are other issues I am working at the moment, this one is very important but I would leave this conversation very soon, as I see the information in this entry in better shape that was before my intervention but it needs much work with still with more verifiable information. I will comeback for time to time to verify the approximation of it. -Veritas Longa 19:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Up there you said you were speaking to the press, reporting Class action against DeVry Inc. That sounds like vendetta to me. x42bn6 Talk 02:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

History has nothing to do with vendetta, It is what it is, well as you see sometimes it is what sounds good to those who are in powerFoucalt"madness and civilization]] shame on you. -00:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that employees or these executives from DeVry are not welcomed in Wikipedia, I don't know, but what is reprehensible is that some contributors are erasing important Sources for one reason or other. Now, we are watching this with our own eyes, and do nothing about it, what kind of wikipedians really are, forget Codeplowed and remember the spirit of collaboration in you, is this insulting? I don't think so. It is ought to be stated in here because the way things are happening, again you are not like what you read write something, perhaps I will answer it but definitely I will defend your right to post in this page, about this subject or the way to write this subject and way we need to emphasize in good or bad points about this for me Monkey and harming DeVry business. -Veritas Longa 14:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there are users who are doing questionable things but they are not the only ones. But as I have said before, stuff that is removed without question, whether negative, positive or neutral, tends to be reverted. Unsourced material that can give legal problems can be removed immediately. x42bn6 Talk 15:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes as you did, you deleted all my essay just because you wanted to do that or you think that was right to do it, but as you see I wrote a new one more for you and others.-Veritas Longa 19:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Which is still soapboxing but I have to get it into your mind that it is bad for Wikipedia. x42bn6 Talk 21:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

→ What you have to get into your mind that your are "stealing" from others and taking decisions that are not yours to take, you are acting as the sole owner of this page, just what your are doing has a name: It is called digimonizing the discussion. Now bear in mind this is not a chat in which the electronic text or content belong to the company that host the forum or blog. Be careful, I will give somedays to put back what you have took and please take out that ridicule press released from here, honor your "job", or you want to insult with it, your got it. Remember you have been warned for the last time and just want you to be "You" but do not impose your view in other, Discuss in fine, deleting and throwing stones and hide your hands in wrong, well a least you are throwing stones without hiding your hands, uhm... sometimes any way that is vandalizing. -Veritas Longa 01:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:NPA#Removal of text, there is no policy regarding removal of personal attacks so I take the essay's view and opted to remove it. Either way, it was posted many times hence I treated it as harassment as well.

A Digimon is a fictional creature - you cannot "Digimonise" a discussion. It's not possible. I'm not going to put it back because I believe it should stay out. I have been warned for the last time, true, but without the previous few warnings and a sysop does not necessarily ban or block just because there is a level 4 warning. And I am not going to hide that warning. My conduct should be able to speak for itself regarding that level 4 warning and I doubt I will be blocked for it. And what you are saying there constitutes harassment as well. I suggest you redact those comments. x42bn6 Talk 02:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

You don't know nothing of ontology and nothing about existance, please go and lecture yourselg in how to become a good Wikipedian, Digimonizing is a neologysm language evolve everyday as, Pokemons, Do you know? so yor attitude self-discribe what is digimonizing. it it like saying Texas is a "independant Nation" or "Elvis is alive" yes right, and you just came here? right? the different from hoax or urban legends is that you are doing it in Wikepedia for Goodness sake! Sleep well at night. Just never tell that you were never told. -Veritas Longa 00:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

In that case, I suppose I could monkeyise myself because monkeys apparently evolved into human beings. Isn't it strange that if you Google "digimonise" or "digimonize", you get close to zero results - one in French? It's nowhere near a neologism - unless you coin this and make it popular. Not all nouns can be verbalised - you cannot "tree" something, you cannot "sky" something and you cannot "ant" something. And just so you know, not all Digimon evolve (digivolve) and not all Pokémon evolve. x42bn6 Talk 01:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Section break 2

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)

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)

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)

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)

→ 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)

→ 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)

"I am using it as experiment" ← WP:POINT Vagary 01:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

Vagary's bad Behavior

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)

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)

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)

I'm Canadian, I don't believe in your Constitution and your kooky Freedoms. ;D Vagary 21:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

Section break 3

In summary, I encourage to comment or to concentrate in this entry in the most canonical and wikifying shape and manner, conduct your research, use images and logos released under GFDL or in its defect with absolute permission of the copyright holders, or use the four freedoms embedded in the commons. In the final analysis, I am not imposing, I am exposing, try to consider and if and only if you are associated with DeVry may you are learning something that nobody wanted to tell you before and will be good for you and also as a newly converted neutral contributor, which is what I writing this long essay in the first place. Become neutral, read opposing views, have time to research and growth as much as you can: all of this you can in here: Wikepedia. I am striving the same. Thank you. -Veritas Longa 14:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

You can stop with the GFDL talk because nothing is being violated here - all contributions are licensed under the GFDL and removal of information, while it may be a problem under the GFDL (not a lawyer so I don't know), we delete articles under WP:AfD all the time. This is even worse, because the diffs are not public! x42bn6 Talk 15:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Note: I've responded paragraph by paragraph because it makes things easier - I am not editing your posts. x42bn6 Talk 15:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Be very careful, I feel very insulted when somebody comes in here without not knowing what is The GFDL and what entitles that license and starts deleting "stuff" as they were the owners of the universe which is precisely what we want to avoid: Instead build upon, regenerate, construct from, but not destroyed something that is not yours and as you mentioned you do not understand. Give thanks to the efforts of RMS et. al., because we can have this communication in the way we have it today because him. Be thankful and Learn, you don't need to be a lawyer, you need to start learning, that is why we all are here for. You are intelligent, use it for a good cause, mainly I have to say you do. Now, look for sources take your time and make a good "neutral" and verifiable entry. Well if you want, I am sure you do and will. There is learning in Freedom and the GFDL legally ensures it. -Veritas Longa 19:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

== User:Codeplowed's comments that he wishes to ave in this talk page ==

There aren't many of us but let's just build a straw poll. I have copied those comments to User:x42bn6/Sandbox. Go there, read what he has to say, and vote on the talk page (User talk:x42bn6/Sandbox), leaving reasons. Refrain from editing my sandbox or my reasons. You can treat my sandbox as if it were your own userspace for this quick discussion, but do not edit the actual content (User:Codeplowed is welcome to add any more comments he feels have been unfairly removed to it, though). Don't mess with my sandbox, though - I will sign it up for deletion after this is over. x42bn6 Talk 02:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC) -Veritas Longa 00:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I think there is a need to report you, this is personal attack, harassment and you do not understand how to hold a discussion need to reread code of ethics and standards civil and WP:OWN, I am not voting because you do not have the right to determine a poll in putting down anybody, more importantly when I see the results of your complaints, it is written is not "capital punishment" and quite frankly, it has improve the attention of many on the entry and has started to become better. So don't do it. I will be vigilant. Ah sign all your entries, do not use IP anon to erase important sources as you were caught on record -vivere est cogitare 15:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DiogenesRex (talk • contribs)

You don't have to vote on the poll if you don't want to. I just want to bring consensus into the comments and whether they are warranted or not. He is complaining about the comments being removed, so a straw poll on whether they are warranted is useful to show him that they are not warranted (or otherwise). If you think it is a personal attack, report it - I don't think it is and it will stay. x42bn6 Talk 15:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Nope I don't going to report anymore, it is not need for it there are backups, there are so many discussions and the entry is more exhibitin the history of the events, needs more work, but suffice with the information given now, I am not given DeVry more information, I will be back to make sure and provide more historical conclussion, hope I not have to intearact with you anymore, because as I said you are digimonized and is your blame and not mine is your cognitive,or rational-emotive behavior I cannot help, I would need to start charging you. Your suffer of tunel vision and also recentismo I don't think you can learn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Codeplowed (talk • contribs) 17:25, 27 April 2007

Inc.

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)

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)

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)

University System

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

SEC Filings (10-K, 10-Q)

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)

Graduate Statistic

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)

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)

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)

Codeplowed's Sockpuppets

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)

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)

blocked

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)

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)