User talk:ZQPM2941
Welcome!
Hello, ZQPM2941, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Basket of Puppies 02:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
November 2009
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on American University of Antigua College of Medicine. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Basket of Puppies 19:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I have not made more than three revisions to any page within a 24 hour period. I was just replacing information I posted that was removed without discussion by other users. I only replaced what was removed via cut-n-paste, and only once per day when reviewed
I also do not feel that I was being bias, just posting verifiable facts.
Since other users do not like the format of my last posting and or references I have changed the title and content to show pure facts that can be either verified or denied with proof.
I am sorry if other users do not like the content sometimes the facts hurt others that have vested interests in private money making enterprises.
This is my firt text reply so please forgive me for any formatting errors.
Please stop deleting "REVERTING" my editions to this article.
If you would like to discuss the topics I am here to show factual evidence of everything posted.
Please show proof of my bias. I have not shown any bias; I am posting facts.
As per the Wikipedia example of facts "The United States is the only nation that has used a nuclear weapon during wartime is a fact"
This is my article of facts. If someone can prove otherwise than please post your facts. But please do not revert my article.
"AUA failed a student that earned an 80% during a 5th semester course.
AUA falsified student records more by stating in note (3) “Failed Final Exam. Did take remedial and failed” and “Did not have OP rotation”. The final grades clearly show that the student earned a 95% for the Out Patient, OP rotation.
This image of the 5th Semester final grades was obtained during depositions of St Joseph Mercy Oakland hospital administration. Only the student names have been erased from the image.
AUA charged students for tests, but did not administrate the shelf exams that were scheduled during the same 5th semester course."
If you have proof that shows otherwise than please post your evidence. If you do not like my wording then I am more than willing to negotiate it with you. For example you might not like the word "falsify" for example, please let me know what word you would like me to use to describe this wrong information in student records.
Please show proof that I am editing a page more than three times in one 24 hour period. What I am doing is "self-reverting" which is not a violation.
Im sure AUA would love this article to be locked and made private. But that is against Jimmy Whales oppinions "While I continue to oppose the introduction of any advertising in Wikipedia"
"Wikipedia is free content, no one owns an article." Basket of Puppies, someone is violating the reverting rules. It is against the rules. Whomever is "throwing away" my changes this is against the rules. If you have useful proof that information is in error please post the information and hence I will do the same.
ZQPM2941 3:37, 16 November 2009 (ET) ZQPM2941 (talk) 17:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- I invite you to bring up these issues on the talk page of the article, located here. Basket of Puppies 18:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi ZQPM2941, the names are still visible on the photo that you uploaded. This is illegal as it reveals the names of the other students. Please take down the photo.BedTimeForBonzo (talk) 19:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)BedTimeForBonzo
December 2009
Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles . Please cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. Leuko Talk/Contribs 00:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
AUA proponents claim violations of neutrality, bias, verification of reference, legal issues now original research... that's funny, since how can the facts be original research if it was published by AUA? What is AUA bias proponents going to do next to stop the publication of the facts?
ZQPM2941 (talk) 23:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
ZQPM2941 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
AUA proponents claim violations of neutrality, bias, verification of reference, legal issues now original research... that's funny, since how can the facts be original research if it was published by AUA? What is AUA bias proponents going to do next to stop the publication of the facts?
Instead of talking about any of the issues I’ve posted that proponents for AUA have merely reverted each and every one since I started posting my facts. They claim bias, but yet they post the similar bias information on the page. For example This page contains this quote “AUA has submitted its application to the state of California to gain institution approval and is awaiting notification for the next steps required to continue the process.” But if you follow the reference[3] it’s not about the California application by AUA. It is about AUA students suing the state of Arkansas. “http://www.arkansasmedicalnews.com/news.php?viewStory=758” “The American University of Antigua College of Medicine and four of its students are suing the Arkansas State Medical Board and its board members, claiming board policies unfairly and unconstitutionally exclude graduates of the school from practicing medicine in Arkansas.” AUA posted the similar information under the heading” ==Licensing issues and lawsuit==”
“Graduates from the College of Medicine have been listed as "disapproved" by the Medical Board for the State of Arkansas and are ineligable for an Arkansas medical license due to the State of California currently listing the school as "unrecognized".[1] The Arkansas Medical Board utilizes the California Medical Board's list of approved and unapproved medical schools for purposes of accepting and granting medical license applications. A lawsuit was filed against Arkansas by the College of Medicine and four students of the school. The lawsuit claims that the school must not be listed as "disapproved" since the California Medical Board has yet to be examine AUA. AUA has applied to the California Medical Board for review but have not yet been inspected. As such the Arkansas Medical Board is violating its own rules by marking as disapproved a school which has not been formally inspected by California. According to AUA's attorneyHowever this has not yet happened and the lawsuit remains in the court system”Sclafani said the school was willing to pay for the board's expenses to come to Antigua to investigate it.[1]
But this was removed after I posted my information concerning the legal actions I have against them! Of which they have reverted EVERY time! They are using WP as an advertising tool, not an encyclopedia. Look at every entry I’ve made they have reverted each and every one instead of talking about any of them, after I’ve have requested from them to provide facts from them to prove I’m wrong of which they have not produced. Why because they are facts. I see my facts were removed before initiating the block.
Decline reason:
None of this is relevant. You were edit warring; you got blocked. Happens to anyone who does the same thing, regardless of the validity or lack thereof of the edits they were making. --jpgordon::==( o ) 01:19, 4 December 2009 (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.
{{unblock reviewed|1= Please note, it wasn't an edit it was a selfrevert. My facts were part of the WP page before the warning. As you can see from the current message on the page in question, AUA is trying to "Protect" this page, which is nothing more than controlling this page from the facts. I feel this further proves their bias and use of WP as nothing more than advertising their business. ZQPM2941 (talk) 15:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
{{unblock reviewed|1= I noticed you only blocked me and not the individuals that REVERT information without discussion. This is against WP rules. ZQPM2941 (talk) 15:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
May 2018
Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Clery Act, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. The section added to the article about the American University of Antigua did not seem relevant to the Clery Act but rather to be a defamation suit with all the references pointing to a non-neutral web site. There were no third party newspaper articles, journal articles etc that indicate (a) how the Clery act is relevant and (b) showing that the info is notable. Erp (talk) 00:40, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
The article Anchorage Yacht Basin has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Exclusively reliant on primary source. Only found trivial mentions of the subject or entries in social media or databases. Lacks significant coverage to pass WP:NCORP.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 21:24, 25 October 2023 (UTC)