Dahnshaulis

October 2014

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to University of Phoenix. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:15, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Who are you and what is your interest in University of Phoenix?

I am a Wikipedia editor and I have no interest in the University of Phoenix. From your userpage, I see you have a vested interest in opposing them. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:47, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Then why would you delete important and credible information?

Again, why would you delete credible information from a trustworthy investigative reporter?

10-31-2014 Did you have the University of Phoenix Wikipedia blocked? 11-3-2014 Muboshgu, did you have the University of Phoenix Wikipedia blocked? 11-6-2014 Wikipedia's reputation is tarnished when people like Muboshgu erase important legal and consumer information.

Friendly advice

It's wonderful that you're working to add new, relevant information to Wikipedia. I have two pieces of advice. First, please remember that this is an encyclopedia and not a collection of advice articles. Second, we must maintain a neutral point of view; this is not a place to try to right wrongs or correct injustices.

Much of the material you've added is welcome and wonderful because we don't have enough information about many of the topics to which you've contributed. But be careful that you don't add negative information about for-profit universities simply because someone somewhere has written something negative about them. Our information must be reliably sourced and it must only be included in proportion to its weight. For example, it's often not wise or acceptable to include mention of a lawsuit that hasn't received any significant attention because anyone can file a lawsuit for almost any reason. ElKevbo (talk) 21:37, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The main article about for-profit higher ed in the US was a bit mixed together with some other content and poorly labeled at For-profit education so I split it all out into a new article at For-profit higher education in the United States. I think it already has much of what you've been trying to add to the list article but feel free to edit it and keep it up-to-date. It's a much better place for your additions than the list article which should generally remain a fairly simple list. ElKevbo (talk) 22:12, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

(And it's generally frowned upon to continue to edit war when someone has opened discussion in Talk. It'll probably get you blocked if you make it a habit and it certainly won't win you any friends. ElKevbo (talk) 22:14, 13 January 2015 (UTC))

Elkevbo, I'm not here to make friends, but to make entries that will be helpful in the democratization of education. As I have said in other places, your attempt at so-called "neutrality" is actually an act of complicity. Moving this information to another spot is insufficient.

I encourage you to read the work of Cornell Professor Suzanne Mettler, , attorney David Halperin , and investigate researcher Aaron Glantz

"Indeed, the purpose of an encyclopedia is to collect knowledge disseminated around the globe; to set forth its general system to the men with whom we live, and transmit it to those who will come after us, so that the work of preceding centuries will not become useless to the centuries to come; and so that our offspring, becoming better instructed, will at the same time become more virtuous and happy, and that we should not die without having rendered a service to the human race." dahnshaulisDahnshaulis (talk) 23:37, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Kevin, I have added a short bibliography that you should consider reading. I'd be interested in what books you are reading about the history and state of higher education. Dahnshaulis (talk) 17:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC) Zenith Education Group is a subsidiary of ECMC. They are taking over 57 campuses of Corinthian Colleges. I have changed the entry to include ECMC instead.Dahnshaulis (talk) 18:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Zenith Education Group

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Zenith Education Group requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 18:10, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Zenith Education Group is a subsidiary of ECMC. They are taking over 57 campuses of Corinthian Colleges. Dahnshaulis (talk) 18:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Educational Credit Management Corporation

Hello Dahnshaulis,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Educational Credit Management Corporation for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. ubiquity (talk) 18:26, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited For-profit higher education in the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kaplan. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

References

If you insist on throwing in a bunch of references in article, it would be very helpful if you would also include bibliographic information (e.g., title, author, date) preferably by using one of our reference templates. It's pretty sloppy and unprofessional to not include that information and it makes work for other editors. If you need help understanding how to do that, please ask. ElKevbo (talk) 20:31, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Mr. Guidry, I am not an expert Wikipedia writer. Dahnshaulis (talk) 23:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

You've made over 400 edits since 2011; you're not new here. ElKevbo (talk) 00:03, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Mr. Guidry, I plan to get better at this. I am thankful to those people who have helped with proofreading and editing. Dahnshaulis (talk) 13:06, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Please do get better because it is becoming tiresome cleaning up after you. And please stop referring to me as "Mr. Guidry" as it's (a) rude to use the wrong title and (b) probably confusing to other editors. ElKevbo (talk) 15:50, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Why, despite the note above from ElKevbo about formatting citations and all the edit summaries from me about not putting a space between the punctuation and the citation, do you continue improperly adding references like here? And why have you not gone back and fixed the ones you already did improperly? Bahooka (talk) 05:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

bahooka, I'm sorry for making your work difficult. Perhaps I am posting too quickly, because I anticipate someone at one of these for-profits to hire someone (and perhaps a team) to delete the information. Although I have made lots of posts recently, my goal has been to post as much credible and trustworthy information about these corporations. Dahnshaulis (talk) 09:59, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

"See also" hatnotes

Please stop putting the "See also" hatnotes at the beginning of all the articles. I originally put a "See also" hatnote at the beginning of a section, not an article. That link would be better in the first sentence or in the "See also" section that goes near the end of the article, but not where you've been putting it. That's why it has been removed before. Bahooka (talk) 15:18, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Bahooka, many of the links were to a different article that was not as directly related to for-profit colleges (links to for-profit education which covers much more ground). I will be more careful.

Dahnshaulis (talk) 15:21, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

In addition to the issue of a "see also" being misplaced at the very beginning of an article, in most cases it's better to change the link in the opening sentence/paragraph to point directly to the new for-profit higher ed in the U.S. article instead of leaving it at the vague and generic for-profit education article. In those instances where such a link in the lead may not work, the article should be added to a specific "See also" section near the end of the article. ElKevbo (talk) 15:52, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Guidry, thank you for the clarification. Dahnshaulis (talk) 22:21, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

== Whitewashing Wikipedia (as it relates to For-profit higher education in the United States==)

First, the title for this section won't get much traffic, even if people are looking for information on for-profit colleges.

It has also become apparent that a few people who edit Wikipedia articles are whitewashing the articles. I have spent a considerable amount of time and effort documenting the actions of the US for-profit higher education industry and their connections to key politicians, political parties, and celebrities. I understand that some people may be concerned with libel, but all of my sources are referenced. Several of the sources are from investigative journalists who take pride in their work. Dahnshaulis (talk) 22:41, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Career Education Corporation

Hello Mr. D., I'm just getting used to sending messages this way. Wish there was like an IM where I can instantly speak with you. I'm 216.49.218.2 and I have been editing the CEC page, trying to leave pretty detailed information as to what I'm doing. I thought I was being helpful but my edits keep getting reverted.

My goal is just to clean up the page to get the accurate information in and sequentially. At the same time, delete what's redundant. That's it. But, you keep reverting my edits. So what can I do first to make you happy so I can get it cleaned up? And, is there an easier way to talk?

C.216.49.218.2 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:17, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Career Education Corporation

Hello again, I checked to see if you replied and noticed several links under my question to you but none of those links answered any of my questions. So, I'm going to make some edits of accurate, current information on the CEC site and if you have questions, please talk to me about them on the Talk feature. I will gladly look for you.

C. 216.49.218.2 (talk) 20:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lincoln Group of Schools, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Richard Blum. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:40, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

University of Phoenix

Thanks for the edit. Dahn

You requested in an edit summary on the University of Phoenix article that editors "carefully review" and "talk to you" before editing. OK, I'm talking. After careful review, the phrase "University of Phoenix's online has been designated..." is horrible wording. Shall we fix this? Jonathunder (talk) 21:49, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Notice on ANI discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Ownership issues, undue weight, and soapboxing. Thank you. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I have no intention of undoing the edit. Listing campusses in that way is totally unencyclopedic. An encyclopedia article is not the place to wage a campaign of the kind you are engaged in. If people want to look upo the information they can find it in the source. Your suggestion that this has anything to do with whitewashing is absurd. Paul B (talk) 20:18, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Barek, I respectfully disagree. Please undo the edit. I would like to reiterate that you may not be qualified to judge the material. Please email me privately and tell me what your qualifications are for editing this material Dahnshaulis (talk) 20:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: The most recent revert was not done by me - it was another user. Next, content dispute issues should be discussed on Wikipedia where it is publicly visible to other editors, not via email. And lastly, as mentioned at WP:ANI#Ownership issues, undue weight, and soapboxing, my credentials are irrelevant to the discussion, and certainly not up to you to judge who should and should not be authorized to edit a particular article.

FYI: I recommend taking another look at the ANI discussion, as additional issues have been brought up in that discussion. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:31, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I apologize. I have posted a message to Paul Barlow asking his to undo the edit. Dahnshaulis (talk) 20:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Stop posting bare references

Please see Wikipedia:Citation templates to start formatting your bare references. You've been asked multiple times to do this. The bare references do not contain sufficient information and will become useless when they inevitably become dead links. Bahooka (talk) 17:03, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

This is very confusing to me. Can you give me some examples? Dahnshaulis (talk) 12:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

See my response with examples at User talk:Bahooka#Posting Bare References. Bahooka (talk) 14:25, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• Confusing my foot. Nothing confusing about it: give full bibliographical information--it's one of the things we teach in higher education, like in Freshman Comp. Here: you're welcome. Drmies (talk) 15:55, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

You can also find information about citing references on Wikipedia at Help:Introduction to referencing/1 and Wikipedia:Citing sources. You'll find this information useful in your editing here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:39, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Bahooka, Thank you.Dahnshaulis (talk) 22:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

February 2015

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for using Wikipedia to publish original research using primary sources. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  v/r - TP 18:01, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing. Wikipedia is not a publishing or news reporting organization. We are a tertiary source. All of our content must be published already in secondary sources. You've said that the media is censoring your information. Unfortunately, Wikipedia will always reflect the biases of the media - we're aware of it and we've decided that it is better than the alternative - which is basing Wikipedia's credibility on some anonymous editor from who knows where with a twitter account insisting he's got the truth. If you want to be unblocked, you need to convince the reviewing administrator that you will use secondary sources, work collegially with other editors, quit arguing that editors need to contact you before making changes and quit using primary sources for controversial content.--v/r - TP 18:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

So what you are saying, on the record, is that if the media becomes increasingly fascist (and opaque), that you will go along with that? Because increasingly, this global neoliberal network is really limiting information flow. Entertainment is fine, but telling the People how the economy really works is extremely limited (for the working classes). Dahnshaulis (talk) 22:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Core content policies, which addresses your questions. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:18, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Barek, perhaps there needs to be a forum on Wikipedia, the Internet, and the growth of global fascism.Dahnshaulis (talk) 12:52, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Dahnshaulis (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Recent events in for-profit colleges and higher educationDahnshaulis (talk) 9:26 am, Today (UTC+0)

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you

1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yunshui ^雲_水 10:41, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I am requesting to be unblocked. I will abide by the rules of Wikipedia and its community. There are several recent events that warrant inclusion.

• http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/25/corinthian-15-student-loans_n_6739016.html
• http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/28/opinion/a-strike-against-student-debt.html?_r=1
• http://money.cnn.com/2015/03/01/pf/college/student-loan-debt-strike/
• http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/28/corinthian-fifteen-refuse-to-pay-forced-student-lo/
• http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/get-there/wp/2015/02/25/a-dangerous-revolt-people-are-refusing-to-pay-back-student-loans/

The events of the first US student loan debt strike should be included. This event has gotten a considerable amount of media exposure. Dahnshaulis (talk) 09:46, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I am going to add back content at Corinthian Colleges that I had reverted when it was unsourced and include one of those references. However, considering User:Dahnshaulis is tweeting that he is trying to get unblocked from Wikipedia just so he can add in this information about the "Corinthian 15", indicates to me that he does not understand the reason for his block, how Wikipedia works regarding WP:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and that he will continue to attempt to use Wikipedia as an advocacy platform. Bahooka (talk) 15:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for reverting the information. Dahnshaulis (talk) 21:35, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Also, thank you for reading my Twitter page. Do you do that very often?

Unfortunately, you did not add that this was part of a much larger movement, the "Strike Debt" movement. If you read the articles, you would see that the "Strike Debt" organization is expressly mentioned. Many of the articles were sympathetic to the "Corinthian 15" but the a Washington Post piece referred to their behavior as "dangerous." You may also see from reading the articles that several hundred students have gone to the "Strike Debt" organization to explore their options.

I'm sorry that primary sources are not considered legitimate sources by the editors of Wikipedia. As someone who has been trained in historiography and qualitative methods, it really doesn't make sense to me and I wonder how arbitary this decision was. Dahnshaulis (talk) 21:48, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I also find it interesting that the one reference that the editor used for the "Corinthian 15" referred to their behavior as "dangerous." Was this selection made consciously or unconsciously? That Washington Post reference was the only article that was that incendiary. I think it's ok to include that reference, but that more references need to be used to show the diversity of opinion, including sympathy for the strikers.

Also, there have been several significant events that should be included in the "For-profit higher education in the United States" area. It's unfortunate that I have been banned from making any additions. I would also like to include an addition about the role between the Clintons and other power players in Laureate Education (the largest for-profit higher education company in the US).

Dahnshaulis (talk) 12:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

ITT Technical University: Unable to enter important information, including primary sources

Itt Tech faces fraud charges by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. How is this information (and the supporting document) not important to the article on ITT Tech?

Dahnshaulis (talk) 12:27, 12 March 2015 (UTC) Dahnshaulis (talk) 22:11, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia Allowing Whitewashing of University of Phoenix

There have been several significant edits of University of Phoenix. This is a significant whitewashing of the for-profit school that has been struggling for years. Nowhere in the first section is there information about the enrollment declines or site closings. Apparently this information has been removed--despite its significance.

Where are the editors who censored me and blocked my access? Why haven't these editors reviewed this article for neutrality? Why have they allowed an unknown person (with the IP address "71.70.177.9" to whitewash this article three times since December 6, 2014?

Dahnshaulis (talk) 01:41, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

For-profit higher education in the United States article needs revision

To the Wikipedia gatekeepers and editors:

Several significant events have occurred in For-profit higher education in the United States since I was banned from making entries. I would also like to add important information about for-profit colleges, to include:

1. The Chronicle of Higher Education reported on the manipulation of student loan default rates by using temporary forbearance. ITT Technical University University of the Rockies were unfavorably mentioned.

2. Inside Higher Education has been reporting on 76 colleges that face heightened cash monitoring by the US Department of Education. An additional 455 schools are also facing scrutiny because of low graduation rates and high default rates.

4. APSCU has an economic impact study that should be mentioned, referring to job creation and economic impact.

5. Navient is bundling for-profit private loans into toxic Student Loan Asset-Backed Securities (SLABS).

6. Apollo Education Group executives are reporting continued losses in enrollment at University of Phoenix, from nearly 600,000 to 200,000 by the end of 2015.

7. A student resistance movement called the "Corinthian 15" "Strike Debt Movement" and "Debt Collective" is emerging. There have been dozens of articles written about this movement since late February 2015.

8. The US Department of Education released the names of approximately 500 schools that are subject to cash monitoring.

9. Devry, EDMC (Art Institutes), and Career Education reported several campus closings.

10. ITT Educational Services CEO Kevin Modany and CFO Daniel Fitzpatrick were charged for fraud by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

11. Two University of Phoenix recruiters filed a class action suit against their former employer, alleging that they were forced to manipulate and lie to vulnerable soldiers and veterans.

12. Mass layoffs at University of Phoenix on June 29, 2015

Dahnshaulis (talk) 01:56, 13 May 2015 (UTC) Dahnshaulis (talk) 22:25, 29 March 2015 (UTC) Dahnshaulis (talk) 12:06, 2 April 2015 (UTC) Dahnshaulis (talk) 01:06, 7 May 2015 (UTC) Dahnshaulis (talk) 00:05, 23 June 2015 (UTC) Dahnshaulis (talk) 10:45, 30 June 2015 (UTC)