Talk:American Central University

Archives

Please note that I have archived the contents of this page prior to June 2008, excepting the lengthy and ongoing exchange below. CosmicPenguin (Talk) 03:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

To anonymous editor

Good sir/madam, Welcome to Wikipedia. I thank you for your attempted improvements to Wikipedia. Please notice that your edits have been reverted because they do not follow Wikipedia policy. I respectfully suggest that you get better familar with Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and suggested practices. Perhaps a nice friendly place to start is WP:WELCOME. I think that you'll find that there are many friendly editors here on Wikipedia that will be happy to answer any specific questions that you might have. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 02:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear Sir/madam, The information listed on wikipedia are seditous and not correct. Our request to you will be to provide correct information about our university. Alternatively you may altogether remove our organisation from you list. Thank you Ann —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.82.52.77 (talk) 04:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ann, I would like to welcome you to Wikipedia and suggest you may be interested in reading the WP:Welcome article. Thank you so much for your interest in Wikipedia and the accuracy of this article. It is very much appreciated. I also appreciate that you have chosen to share your valued opinion on this talk page. Regarding your above assertions, I believe that everything stated in the article has been properly sourced and is verifiable. I really would appreciate it though if you could point out specific statements that are not properly sourced. Or perhaps you may have some alternative sources that seem to contradict the sources referenced in the article? Such considerations are very important and are taken very seriously. I would also like to suggest that you review the Wikipedia conflict of interest policy. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 14:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Break 1

Hi Tallmagic,

Thank you for your reply and I would like to explain the following:

American Central University is owned by SS. Shah and Raymond Chan. Dr. Adalat Khan is only the member of academic council. American Central University has also got nothing to do with the Hawaii University. The following are some of the external sources which you may view too. I will suggest and request you to correct the false information alleging and spreading seditious information the rest would be fine. Thank you. Ann

REFERENCES:

1. www.acusa.net
2. http://collegenetsearch.com/school/American_Central_University/10590
3. http://www.learn4good.com/distance_learn/usa_online_learning_bachelor_master_degrees.htm
4. http://allaboutonlineeducation.blogspot.com/2008/01/american-central-university-innovative_17.html
5. http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/49279

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.54.66.2 (talk) 02:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Ann, thank you for your continued interest and suggestions. Here's my comments on each of your above links.

1. This link is already in the article as the primary link in the External Links section.
2. The information in this link is the street address for ACU. Are you suggesting that we add that information to the article?
3. This appears to be an advertisement. At least some of this information could be found on the ACU website. It could potentially be useable as self published material. A source for self published material would better be the ACU website than an advertisement. It is unclear to me what material in the learn4good site should be used. An important point here is that any material used needs to presented in a neutral manner.
4. When I tried to read the posting by Dr. Khan, I got an error. Perhaps it might work latter but whatever it says it can't really be used as a source. Wikipedia does not normally allow blog posts to be used as a source because it can't be proven that the author actually was Dr. Khan or someone just pretending to be Dr. Khan. Although sometime such material can be a good lead to some reliable sources or even provide material that can be backed up by a reliable source after a search.
5. This is a nice article written by Dr. Khan.

I saw nothing in the above links that mentioned Shah or Chan. The article source for the disputed information, Casper Star Tribune, supports the assertion that Dr. Khan is the owner. It also supports the affiliation of ACU and the American University of Hawaii. Please note that if the Casper Star Tribune is wrong then ACU needs to have them publish a correction or perhaps have another reliable source publish the correct information. All information in Wikipedia must be verifiable. The Casper Star Tribune is a reliable source and their article is verifiable. So all the information in the article I believe is verifiable. Specifically the items that are disputed are verified in that article. I'm sorry Ann but unsupported assertions by you (or me or anyone) cannot be used to support information in Wikipedia. I do appreciate your help and hope that you correct any misunderstandings, mistakes, or items that I missed. For example, perhaps the ACU website mentions Shah and Chan? That should be information that self published would probably apply. May I suggest you review the five pillars that describes these policies in greater detail. Thanks again, TallMagic (talk) 04:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

You are basing your whole article on lies and seditious article rather professionally looking at the neutral views. The article I provided to you are ignored but the opposite is being acceptable to you. Isnt it make you a proponent of a false and selfish seditious propaganda against one person who has got nothing to do with it. Please strict to the main objective of wiki which is not allege and disrepute others but be impartial. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.54.70.93 (talk) 09:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Ann, please assume good faith. You're accussing me and fellow editors on this article of false motivations. We all want the Wikipedia article to be accurate, verifiable, and reflect a neutral point of view. While we all hope for the truth, more important is that whatever is stated in Wikipedia is verifiable. For example the first sentence of the verifiable policy states, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." Ann, your statements here while appreciated are not verifiable. The article in the Casper Star Tribune is verifiable and the Casper Star Tribune is a reliable source. Please point out where the article you provided me even conflicts with the Wikipedia article content. I believe our discussion will be more productive if we discuss specifics about the article content or Wikipedia policy and try to avoid discussing general characterizations especially characterizations regarding our fellow editors. Thank you, TallMagic (talk) 14:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not trying to acuse you but we as a general public also expect wikipedia to see alternative views from people who are affected by your articles. It is sad to see that some people are bent on spoiling the names of good schools. ACU is a new entity with good affiliates offering good services. A journalist whos views are only mired by his prejudices can not be used against ACU. History is replete with examples where some yellow journalists cooked up stories just to tarnish other's image. I would not give a damn to this journalist and shall continue pursuing my program with ACU. I do hope that you will correct the facts and do justice to the reputation of Wikipedia and ACU. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.54.65.14 (talk) 01:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately you have provided us with nothing reliable that provides a view contrary to the one presented in the article. This article does not exist to serve as a directory entry or as free advertisement for the school, it exists to document a notable entity in history; in this case an entity notable for negative behavior. If you can give us some reliable sources that confirm other facts about the university, then please do. We would be happy to write that somebody other then Dr. Khan is the owner of the university if any documentation emerges that proves that to be the case. Note that anything written by Mr. Shah or Mr. Chan is not acceptable as a reliable source, because they are direct parties. This back and forth has gone on for more then a year now. Many dozens of times an anonymous editor has changed the article to remove sourced facts about the school. Luckily, there are a number of Wikipedia editors that have this article on their watchlists, and they have been quick to correct the changes. I do not know if you are this anonymous editor, or if they are other agents of the University, but please understand that we won't eventually give up and let you remove sourced information from the article. If you wish the article to be improved, then I urge you to stop replacing the content and collaborate with us. User:TallMagic has posted a laundry list of appropriate guidelines and links that can help you understand what is needed here. Thank you. CosmicPenguin (Talk) 03:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ann, CosmicPenguin is correct in what he says. You have disputed a number of items in the article. Yet you haven't provided any reliable source that supports your assertions. Wikipedia must be based on verifiable information taken from reliable sources. This article does that. Ann, you really haven't provided anything that can be used according to Wikipedia policy and guidelines. You haven't even provided a non-reliable source to back up your disputed facts except for the words of an anonymous person on this talk page, which like anyone's words here is not a reliable source. The reliable sources indicate that the facts in the article are correct. Based on the available information, your plea for justice appears to be more a plea for us to ignore the facts as well as Wikipedia policy. We need to try to keep our focus on the supported facts, that means wp:verifiable facts found in wp:reliable_sources. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 05:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Break 2

Hi Tallmagic, Whatever we provide you instantly reject and rely on biased views which is not fair. Instead may I request you to either accept the facts or altogether remove our organization from wikipedia so as to avoid misunderstanding for everyone. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.82.48.48 (talk) 08:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ann, (I presume that you're Ann, if not please accept my apology.) I'm sorry I can't delete an article because of the request from some anonymous poster on a talk page anymore than I would allow edits to a Wikipedia article that weren't properly sourced. If you would like to officially propose the deletion of an article, I suggest that you read Wikipedia:DELETE. Regarding the assertions in your first sentence, they are false and apparently just "grandstanding". I've reviewed all your links and none of them appear to provide a shred of evidence or even touch on information that you've tried to dispute. If you can provide information that is wp:verifiable from a wp:reliable_source then please provide it. Thanks, TallMagic (talk) 14:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes this is Ann Tallmagic.

I am glad that you are open to alternative views. The assertion in the present article that Dr. Khan is the owner is false. Dr. Khan is not the owner rather member academic council. Moreover Dr. Khan has got nothing to do with other entities which the article contains. Isnt it more realistic and fair that the history of the organization is started with its actual origin by the people who know the organization rather someone who is against it. I am confident you will do as well as wikipedia justice by providing factual information rather concoctions which are damaging both to us as well as wikipedia. Thank you for your considerations. Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.82.53.199 (talk) 07:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ann, When you find the wp:reliable sources that verify assertions you've made on this talk page then please post them here and I'll be happy to make the changes to the article or you can make the changes yourself. Until then please understand that changes to Wikipedia articles must properly sourced unlike your recent changes that are considered vandalism and won't be tolerated. Regards,TallMagic (talk) 13:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Tallmagic, All the sources cited are verifiable and meet the wikipedia guidlines and as such may I once again request you to edit the page making it factual rather seditious. Once that is done I will be happy and will let it remain. Thank you for your considerations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.51.9.184 (talk) 09:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The five sources that you linked to consist of the ACU website, a blog (not a Wikipedia reliable source), an article that could be considered a self published source at best since it was written by Dr. Khan, a meaningless blog that points to that same article but doesn't even contain any blog comments meaningless though they would be, a directory entry that doesn't seem to contain any encyclopedia type information, and an apparent advertisment. In addition nothing in those "sources" supported the changes that you're requesting, at least not that I could find. Please provide wp:verifiable information published by wp:reliable sources. This information also needs to support the changes that you're asking for in the article. What you have provided so far does not even support the changes you have requested! This last unsatisfied requirement is so obvious and so ignored on your part that it is getting very difficult to continue treating your requests as anything more than malicious trolling. Please provide support for your requested changes or your requested changes cannot be allowed. Later, TallMagic (talk) 15:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I have in greater details reviewed the wikie policies as pointed by you. You make absurd comments rather following the wikie policies about editing and revisions. Information about an organization must be quoted from its original sources and not seditious sources. How much do you know about organization? Is it more than me being the major owner? Why you are stubborn in not allowing genuine concerns being addressed? Please be open to valuable changes for which everyone should be thankful. Ann —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.100.192.52 (talk) 08:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Please speak specifics as to what absurd comments I've made, what exact changes you're requesting, what does an original source mean, and what is the seditious source. Provide links to verifiable information that is relevant to your requested change from reliable sources. TallMagic (talk) 13:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that you are really the major owner of ACU. It would seem to me that the major owner of a school would be able to point to sources for changes he/she would like to see in the Wikipedia article about his/her school. A better guess is that you are a young teen that thinks that it is amusing to vandalize Wikipedia. To tell the truth though, it really doesn't matter. When you find the wp:reliable sources that verify for the information you'd like to see in the article then please post them here and I'll be happy to make the changes to the article or you can make the changes yourself. Later, TallMagic (talk) 18:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

You are assuming that I am a teen and assumption is not good. What we request you is to remove the pack of lies associated with your article about our organization. Could you please kindly allow us to publish true information and remove the pack of lies which may be our nemesis has posted on your esteemed website. Wikipedia being a community oriented entity deserve to display correct rather wrong information. Thank you-45years old Ann Burnett —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.51.9.187 (talk) 04:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ann Burnett, I'm sorry but I believe that you may be mistaken on a number of items. First, I am not assuming that you're a teen. My current best guess is that you are a teen. Those are two different statements. Second, this is most definitely not my article. I am but one of many Wikipedians. Third, Wikipedians will not make changes to Wikipedia articles that are not supported by wp:verifiable sources. Nor will they allow others to do so. Fourth, you said earlier that the owners were SS. Shah and Raymond Chan. You also said that you were the major owner. You also said that you are 45years old Ann Burnett. These three statements seem inconsistent. I note that you still haven't provided any verifiable source for any changes. You've also ignored all my other very reasonable requests. When you find the wp:reliable sources that verify for the information you'd like to see in the article then please post them here and I'll be happy to make the changes to the article or you can make the changes yourself. TallMagic (talk) 05:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Break 3

Hi TallMagic, Please unprotect the page so the information on the page is updated and the case closed as both of us need to be friends and focus our time on gainful pursuits rather conflicts. Thank you so much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.51.11.19 (talk) 09:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ann Burnett, When vandals are very active on a particular article making changes to the article that don't follow Wikipedia guidelines nor good journalism practices, then it is sometimes best to protect the article from vandalism. When you find the wp:reliable sources that verify the information you'd like to see in the article then please post them here and I'll be happy to make the changes to the article or you can make the changes yourself. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 14:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Tallmagic, Please note that the history, the ownership and our association with other organization is wrong as such may I request you to unprotect the site. I make changes and we amicably retain it. It needs to be corrected and I apprecaite your support. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.82.52.50 (talk) 03:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Any changes need to be backed up by wp:verifiable information from wp:reliable sources. No Wikipedian would allow unsupported changes to be made to a Wikipedia article. When you find the wp:reliable sources that verify the information you'd like to see in the article then please post them here and I'll be happy to make the changes to the article or you can make the changes yourself. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 04:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

How can I make the changes please advise so I do that. Thanks Ann —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.54.68.208 (talk) 04:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ann Burnett, I believe I've been very clear on the proper method of editting Wikipedia articles. Please review the wp:five pillars article for general information. Note that this general information provides links into more specific information. I think a specific policy that your edits seem to violate is wp:verifiable. One other item that may or may not have been made clear to you is that I am but one of many Wikipedians that are working on this article over the past couple months. None of us will allow edits to add material that violates Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Also you won't be allowed to remove properly sourced material as you have tried to do in the past. The edits that you've attempted in the past appear to be vandalism. If I tried to make the same edits that you've done in the past then they too would be reverted by my fellow Wikipedians. When you find the wp:reliable sources that verify the information you'd like to see in the article then please post them here and I'll be happy to make the changes to the article or you can make the changes yourself when the article protection is removed. It would appear to be a mistake to remove the protection at this point because it appears that you still do not understand the Wikipedia policies or if you do, it appears that you're unwilling to follow those policies. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 05:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ann Burnett, A couple other Wikipedia policies that you may have violated in the past by your article edits are wp:npov and wp:COI. The wp:COI policy would probably not apply if you're a young teen. You're only in violation if you actually are who you say you are. Thanks, TallMagic (talk) 14:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Tallmagic, I do not wish to violate any wikipedia policies but at the same time consider it as a personal obligation that the information provided are true and factual and not concocted and untrue. Thank you for your attention. Ann —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.82.50.29 (talk) 02:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ann Burnett, I'm pleased that at least this last time your edits matched the unsupported assertions that you've made here on this talk page. Your edits have been very sad examples of continued violations of Wikipedia policies. Your Wikipedia edits MUST be verifiable. You attempt to appeal to the truth is irrelevant. For example the beginning sentence of wp:verifiability is, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." One thing you could do (if you're who you say you are rather than a young teen) is publish the owners of ACU on the ACU website. That is the type information that should be usable in the article even though it is self published. When you find the wp:reliable sources that verify the information you'd like to see in the article then please post them here and I'll be happy to make the changes to the article or you can make the changes yourself. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 03:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Tallmagic, I am glad that you are open to include certain references from ACU website which makes sense. Sorry again but what is currently posted is not the truth. For example history should trace the history and not something else which is not the case. Thank you Ann —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.51.10.204 (talk) 09:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ann Burnett, I'm glad that this last time you only deleted information and messed up the references instead of also inserting unverified information. Regarding your appeal to the truth, I already explained that what you (or any editor) believes to be the truth is not the most important consideration for inclusion in Wikipedia. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true."wp:V Deleting verifiable information from articles is generally not acceptable and you need to stop that as well. As an aside, you may want to get an account and try to remember to sign your posts on the talk page. TallMagic (talk) 14:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Break 4

Hi Ann Burnett, your last attempt to edit the article was unacceptable. (It wasn't reverted by me.) Although I did notice an assertion in there that according to ACU, the university was established in 2004. I looked on the website and couldn't find where this assertion was supported. Please provide the link to the page that this information can be found and I'll add that information to the article. Thanks, TallMagic (talk) 14:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello Tallmagic, Ok I will do accordingly and please oblige by displaying the informaiton.

Regards. Ann W Burnett —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.54.65.7 (talk) 03:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ann Burnett, your last edit removed wp:verifiable information and then inserted information that was unsupported and also violated the wp:npov policy, therefore it had to be reverted. Please provide the link to the statement that ACU was founded in 2004. TallMagic (talk) 03:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I have provided the link to the history of the acu establishment please leave it as it is and dont bother about 2004 as it is not listed in the website. Many thanks and hope we reach a consensus. Have a great weekend Ann —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.54.65.7 (talk) 04:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ann W Burnett, please understand that although I'm the only Wikipedian that has been communicating on this talk page with you lately, there are also other Wikipedian's editting this article and reverting your edits. All of your edits have been reverted because they do not follow Wikipedia policies. I'm thinking that it is best if you just stop trying to edit the article. If you are who you say you are then the very act of you editting the article is a violation of policy. Your edits generally do not adhere to the wp:npov policy nor do they follow the wp:verifiability policy. I would suggest that you try to contribute to the article by only commenting on this talk page but so far your comments here have proven to be a waste of time, at least measured against any improvements to the article. So perhaps it would be best to spend your energies elsewhere? Thank you for the kind wishes regarding the weekend. You too have a great weekend. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 16:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Tallmagic, You are persistently refusing whatever I put on the page. My postings are correct and do meet the wikipedia policies but I fail to understand why you do not give me a chance to correct the lies posted. Please stop wasting one another time and it is good for all of us that our organisation is truelly presented and not mis-presented as it is. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.51.9.213 (talk) 04:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ann W Burnett, I've explained multiple times that there are multiple Wikipedians that are reverting your vandalism. It's not just me. What you seem to think are lies are wp:verifiable and found in wp:reliable sources. I'm not interested in discussing truth and lies with you. Please recall the first sentence of the wp:verifiable policy. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true."wp:V Your edits are removing verifiable information and you're replacing it with assertions that are not supported and are not in compliance with the wp:npov policy. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 06:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Tallmagic, From your submissions it would seem that Wikipedia is promoting slander and lies over its platform. Reliable sources about an organization are also its own website which is repeatedly ignored by you and other editors. I do hope we solve this conflict amicably and focus on more productive pursuits as proposed by you. Thank you. Ann W Burnett —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.82.49.246 (talk) 08:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello Ann W Burnett, you have not provided anything that is wp:verifiable for your desired edits, not the ACU website or anything else. You just delete properly wp:verifiable information and say that it is because it is lies but provide zero support for your assertions. The assertions from you (or anyone) on this talk page are NOT the proper sources for an encyclopedia. I have ignored nothing that you've said. You have just not said anything that is relevant to encyclopedia content. You have simply made unsupported assertions. I believe that the Wikipedia guidelines for editting are simple and straight forward for this case. When you find the wp:reliable sources that verify the information you'd like to see in the article then please post them here and I'll be happy to make the changes to the article or you can make the changes yourself after the protection is removed. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 13:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Break 5

Hello Tallmagic, We are repeating ourselves without reaching any conclusion. I have read the contents of wp:verifiable and all sources meet the criteria. My only concern is that Wikipedia should not be used to spread lies and slander against people and organizations.It is the misuse of the freedom of speech. Please unprotect the page so we can make the requisite changes. I do not want our hacker teams to do that. Thanks Ann

"Our hacker teams"?! Is this some kind of threat? Do you seriously think that this kind of nonsense on your part is doing anything to encourage a positive attitude to ACU? Afterwriting (talk) 12:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Afterwriting, Ann is accusing Wikipedia of spreading lies. She seems to expect us to allow changes in the article based on nothing more than her words on this talk page. She claims that she's the major owner of ACU. She also claims that two other names (not Ann W Burnett) are the owners of ACU and these names show up no where in any of the paper work that I can find. She claims to have hacker teams. In my mind these are not the words of the major owner of an institution of higher learning. It seems more likely to me that Ann is a young teen that thinks it is fun to vandalize this article. Of course I could be wrong in this guess but the guess doesn't really matter. The article as currently written is supported by wp:verifiable information that is available in wp:reliable sources. Whether Ann is the owner of ACU, a young teen, or George W. Bush, it doesn't really matter, the contents of the article will be based on Wikipedia policy not the whims of an anonymous editor. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 14:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ann W Burnett, I think it is a good sign that you admit that the current article sources are all wp:verifiable. I hope that means that you will no longer try to delete information out of the article. When you say that there are lies in Wikipedia, I assume you are talking about the ACU article. I further assume that you are talking about the name of the owner(s) of ACU. I've already told you that if you really are the owner of ACU then you need to put the names of the owner(s) on the ACU website and then I'll be happy to put those names in the article. If you're talking about something else then please be more specific. When you provide the wp:reliable sources that verify the information you'd like to see in the article then please post them here and I'll be happy to make the changes to the article or you can make the changes yourself after the protection is removed. Thank you, TallMagic (talk) 14:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Tallmagic, Please do not misunderstand me I do not say the current pages are true rather the one I provided which was not included were. When will you unprotect the page so changes are mad. THank you. Ann —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.54.67.15 (talk) 03:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Sources

At least three independent editors have reviewed the sources listed above and found them to not be reliable. Additionally, many editors have reviewed the sources in the article, especially the Casper Star Tribune article and found them to be reliable. Wikipedia is a private website, you have no right to free speech. If you legitimately believe that you are being libeled, please visit WP:LIBEL or contact the Wikimedia Foundation. Please do not make further claims of libel or slander on this page until you do so. Continued threats may result in removal of your editing privileges while the matter is investigated. CosmicPenguin (Talk) 03:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Ann W Burnett, please carefully read CosmicPenguin's comments above. Please heed his wise suggestions. I would also like to add that threatening hacker attacks will not get you anywhere unless what you want is to lose absolutely all credibility. Regarding your request to unprotect the article, what should be happening at this point is that you need to communicate exactly what changes you would like to see in the article. If the article was unprotected then I would expect you to go back to just wp:edit warring rather than trying to reach a wp:consensus. Your goal should be consensus building rather than edit warring. Thanks, TallMagic (talk) 04:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC) TallMagic (talk) 04:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I have carefully reviewed yours as well as cosmicpenguin's views. You are not giving us any chance of commmunicating our point of views rather imposing your views on us. I am sure wikipedia must have conflict resolution policies. I am also amazed about the claims that wikipedia is not interested in the truth. If it is a platform for spreading lies then ethical hackers must deal with it accordingly. Most of the items in the article are wrong and misleading including the history, ownership etc. which needs removal and correction. I am still not losing hope about sane considerations on your end and amicably resolving our concersn. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.82.55.171 (talk) 03:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Here are the dispute resolution guidelines. CosmicPenguin (Talk) 05:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

"Ethical hackers"? This is getting more and more bizarre! Why don't you actually do something about the problems with verifiability instead of blaming others? They are not spreading lies. Afterwriting (talk) 09:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ann W Burnett, please try to be more explicit instead of speaking in generalities. You seem to say that the Casper Star Tribune has published an article of lies, in your anonymous unsupported apparently young teen opinion. Wikipedia is then spreading those lies by using the Casper Star Tribune article as a source. Is this what you're saying? Didn't you also say that the actual owners were two other people that were not Ann W Burnett? Didn't you also say that you were the major owner of ACU? Haven't you already proven that we can't believe what you say here? Why should anyone believe the unsupported assertions of any anonymous poster anywhere on the Internet? You really are not making sense. You need to be answering questions and presenting reliable sources for things that support what you want said in the article. Threats of slander and hackers is plainly just bizarre. Wikipedia is only repeating what was already published. If what was published was wrong then have the Casper Star Tribune print a retraction or correction. TallMagic (talk) 22:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ann W Burnett, above you made the statement, "You are not giving us any chance of commmunicating our point of views". That statement makes no sense to me. You have expressed yourself freely on this talk page. It is you that have not tried to take advantage of the opportunity by discussing specific instances and arguments instead only speaking in generalities. Please be specific and provide specific verifiable support for your desired changes that can be found in Wikipedia approved reliable sources. Who is this "us" that you've started speaking in terms of? You will get no where speaking with generalities, unsupported assertions, and threats. I hope that you prove my guess wrong that you're just a young teen trying to vandalize the article. The way you can do that is speaking with specifics, verifiable, and reliable sources. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 17:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ann W Burnett, I just got back from a little vacation and was slightly surprised that you haven't responded. So, I thought I'd correct another of your misstatements in your most recent comment. Specifically your statement, "I am also amazed about the claims that wikipedia is not interested in the truth." This claim has not been made on this page except by you. Wikipedia must be based on verifiable information. The actual claim was that verifiability is much more important than your unsupported opinion of what the truth might be. I made the statement that I'm not interested in discussing what you believe (or pretend to believe) the truth to be. Wikipedia must be based on verifiable information. I hope this clears up your misunderstanding on this point. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 17:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Tallmagic, I did not keep quite just because what you say is right but you are stubbornly protecting lies and not including the sources which we provide. What is the use to communicate rather we must seek other means. We are unhappy with the lies about our organization on your website. Thanks Ann —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.82.55.15 (talk) 05:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi 45 yearold Ann W Burnett, It seems obvious that you continue to only speak in generalities because you can't provide verifiable sources for what you want said in the article. The sources you have provided don't even support the assertions that you've made. My personal guess is that you can't provide verifiable sources for what you want said because what you want said is a lie. You haven't even provided any unreliable source for the assertions you've made except for your words on this talk page. I've told you that things like the owner or date founded can be supported by the ACU website. Yet you don't add that information to the ACU website. Why not, perhaps because you're just a young teen that thinks it's fun to vandalize this article? Another important correction to your last comment, this is not my website. It is as much yours as it is mine. I did not revert your most recent two attempts to vandalize the article. They were reverted by two other Wikipedians. Please stop trying to vandalize Wikipedia. Wikipedia has over two million articles in English. There are many responsible editors that have created these articles and there are many responsible editors that are trying to stop vandals like you. Please stop trying to vandalize the article. Please and thank you, TallMagic (talk) 16:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Telling edit

Hi Ann, I believe that your recent edit is very telling[1] and would seem to completely undercut all that you've previously claimed on this talk page. For future reference, the conjugation of lie is lie, lied, liars, lying. I do recognize that English is likely not your native language and this verb conjugation really makes little sense, so please don't interpret that as criticism in any way but actually a serious attempt to try and be helpful. I also must mention that you're once again speaking in generalities that are just too general to really be meaningful. May I respecfully suggest again that you try to find something more constructive to do with your time? Please stop trying to vandalize Wikipedia. Thank you, TallMagic (talk) 05:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

BTW, regarding the assertions that Adalat Khan is not the owner/just a visiting professor/on the advisory council and has 'nothing to do with other entities which the article contains' - firstly, he is listed as the American Central University's President in their corporate filing - look on the 'Parties' tab. He's also both the administrative and billing contact for Mina Management Institute's current domain, mina.edu.my - (easily confirmed at MYNIC). The Mina institute was listed as a study centre for the American University of Hawaii from 2000 to 2004, before the state of Hawaii shut AUH down (the writing on that page is black-on-black due to bad styling, search for 'Perak'). There's even a photo of Adalat Khan with Hassan H. Safavi, the owner of AUH ('Hassan' is his name in the HI court records, he appears to have used 'Henry' sometimes). Mina for their part mention their connection to AUH here - exactly as described in the Casper Star-Tribune.

Also, seditious does not mean what Ann thinks it means. Bazzargh (talk) 13:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Great job on providing this information. We can't be sure what the person claiming to be Ann W. Burnett (perhaps really Adalat Khan?) is up to but it seems clear that he/she is not interested in a factual article. Thank you, TallMagic (talk) 17:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I added the additional reference to the article since the person claiming to be 45year old Ann W Burnett feels that fact is so controversial. It appears to me that little of what Ann W Burnett said can be trusted. His/her edits to the article have been completely unconstructive. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 15:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

website for ACU

The old link to ACU doesn't work. Piercetp put a link to a website for American Central University. This was reverted with a comment indicating that the working link was to an even more bogus diploma mill (not exact wording of edit comment). How do we know that it is not the new website? I think it is reasonable to assume that it is? Regards, TallMagic (talk) 23:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I think its pretty clear that its not. For starters, acusa.net was created on 23-Jul-2002, and last updated on 12-Nov-2007. acuniversity.org was created on 19-Sep-2003 and last updated on 11-Sep2-2008, so its hard to argue one followed the other. A quick check on the Wayback machine shows that the acuniversity.org site is pretty much unchanged from September 2004 [2]. Compare it to acusa.net from the same era [3]. These do not appear to be the same organizations, just two snake-oil salesmen cut from the same cloth. CosmicPenguin (Talk) 00:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

TallMagic, I made that edit. Take a look in the archives (bottom of the page), I've investigated this one before. Acuniversity.org was formerly 'American Coastal University' and they are not a registered US institution at all; I couldn't find any connection between the two going through what corporate/whois/hosting records I could find. Whats more, the terms of ACU's registration in WY preclude them from saying that they are accredited, as that site does. Although, that appears to have changed too, see below. Bazzargh (talk) 00:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

My assumption would be that the owner of ACU had simply created two websites for ACU. One for Wyoming consumption and people wishing to see a government license. Another for more agressive marketing purposes. I note that the Wyoming link is now invalid which would seem to reflect the falling value of the Wyoming license since passage of the laws restricting diploma mills in the state. Please note that the operative word in the above sentences is "assumption". This is a typical challenge for those of us trying to work on unaccredited institution articles. :-) Regards, TallMagic (talk) 02:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Out of business?

Investigating the broken link to acusa.net, I checked up on other links too. The list of registered Wyoming institutions has been updated, and no longer includes ACU. I've not updated the page to reflect this yet because I've emailed the WY Dept of Education to check the facts on this before stating in the article that they are not registered; we already have a reference (in that the official list no longer includes them) but I'd like to double check, since they still have a business registration in WY; they may just have moved on to another state again. I'll update the article once I get a response. Bazzargh (talk) 00:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

It does seem strange that there was a phony link to a phony service pretending to ba ACU. I made the mistake of thinking it was the same thing as the said institution. I found this by doing a google search for American Central University. Let the buyer beware!Piercetp (talk) 18:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The owner of ACU was involved with a phoney school in Hawaii that was closed down by the authorities. His own degree was bestowed by this same diploma mill. He apparently played games with the Wyoming authorities to keep his "diploma mill" in business as long as he could. At the same time this was all going on he was still playing games with his school based in Indonesia. I suspect that the website you found was part of that same set of facades. The organization seems to depend on lies and false facades as is demonstrated by their attempts to corrupt the Wikipedia article. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 22:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Trouble archiving links on the article

Hello. I am finding myself repeatedly archiving links on this page. This usually happens when the archive doesn't recognize the archive to be good.

This could be because the link is either a redirect, or I am unknowingly archiving a dead link. Please check the following links to see if it's redirecting, or in anyway bad, and fix them, if possible.

• http://www.herald-coaster.com/articles/2007/09/28/news/top_story/topstory.txt

In any event this will be the only notification in regards to these links, and I will discontinue my attempts to archive these pages.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:26, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on American Central University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101015220035/http://www.osac.state.or.us:80/oda/accreditation.html to http://www.osac.state.or.us/oda/accreditation.html

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:27, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on American Central University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080913133223/http://www.k12.wy.us/F/psl/degree.html to http://www.k12.wy.us/F/psl/degree.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080913133223/http://www.k12.wy.us/F/psl/degree.html to http://www.k12.wy.us/F/psl/degree.html

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120205195030/http://www.casperstartribune.net/articles/2005/03/12/news/wyoming/171b31f3699b832087256fc1003d8d3b.txt to http://www.casperstartribune.net/articles/2005/03/12/news/wyoming/171b31f3699b832087256fc1003d8d3b.txt
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120205195030/http://www.casperstartribune.net/articles/2005/03/12/news/wyoming/171b31f3699b832087256fc1003d8d3b.txt to http://www.casperstartribune.net/articles/2005/03/12/news/wyoming/171b31f3699b832087256fc1003d8d3b.txt

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:55, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on American Central University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070715144241/http://www.osac.state.or.us/oda/unaccredited.aspx to http://www.osac.state.or.us/oda/unaccredited.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:48, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on American Central University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080108020649/http://idetc.org/accredited_institution.htm to http://idetc.org/accredited_institution.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:19, 18 September 2017 (UTC)