User talk:Saltonking44

May 2014

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to James Kirk diploma mills. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Orlady (talk) 00:39, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, but this is a forum in which users can edit as they like, 1st Amendment right, but I happened to have met the FBI's main witness in the James Kirk case and I have a very different opinion that the so call facts tend to suggest.

I also knew some of the people on these forums personally and I know that often the newspapers have an agenda, sure is nice correcting things when I have solid evidence that I think the notations are suspicious.

Please do not add or change content, as you did to Kensington University, without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Valfontis (talk) 17:57, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Please stop trying to alter Wikipedia articles to make them conform to your point of view. Adding unsourced content that contradicts published sources and deleting content that is supported by reliable sources, as you have done at Kensington University and James Kirk diploma mills, is disruptive to Wikipedia and may lead to blocking of your account, if it persists. Wikipedia is not a venue for righting great wrongs. Nor is it a place to publish what you happen to know; article content should be based on information that has been previously published by reliable sources independent of the article's subject. If what you happen to know is contradictory to what has been published by multiple reliable sources, you need to provide exceptionally strong sourcing for your information. I suggest that you use the article talk pages (Talk:Kensington University and Talk:James Kirk diploma mills) to explain your concerns about these articles, rather than continuing to try to alter the articles. --Orlady (talk) 16:11, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I have placed information here on this site several times showing that LA Times articles are inaccurate I have the facts, and as I have stated here before my facts agree with the Metropolitan Press enterprise that linked Ira Reiner former DA of LA County as feeding stories to destroy his political enemies and the trade off was Reiner would feed the LA Times first hand information on other news worthy tips.

As a graduate of Kensington and a friend of Fred Calabro I resent you trying to damage the reputation of the school and my personal hard work. I don't give a damn what Texas does, Texas can kiss my butt, there are 49 other States and U S Territories.

I know people like you trying to use accreditation as a tool to discriminate against people with. Accreditation works like this, the College or University pays the Board for accreditation, then the accreditation board comes around and says we liked your money and we find you accredited, equals a bribe.

Now let me help educate you, Oregon lady, The Oregon Board of Educational Accreditation, was sued by Kennedy Western and beat the big liberal out there in know it all Oregon.

What you are doing equals anti trust law violations, look up U S V American bar Association, the U S Dept of Justice with an unaccredited school called the Massachusetts school of law sued the American Bar Association and won. The American bar Association was controlling the admission of Law schools, and controlling the State bar test and who enters, the ABA has been held in contempt of Court two times, because they have brainwashed people like you against Private institutions and trying to shut them all down. So the determining factor here is U S v ABA.

So sit back and shut up.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Kensington University. Valfontis (talk) 19:54, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Civility and POV-pushing

I don't like Oregon Liberal that think they can control the lives of the people in the other 49 states.

If I continue to be blocked I will look at legal remedies

Orlady is from Oak Ridge. I'm from Oregon though. Please read up on Civility. POV-pushing and telling people to "shut up" are likely to get you blocked. We've invited you to discuss the articles you are trying to change on those articles' talk pages. Please do so. Valfontis (talk) 19:58, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Valfontis (talk) 20:07, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Read http://ope.ed.gov/accreditation/

May 2014

Your recent editing history at Kensington University shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Dougweller (talk) 21:08, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is your site says copyrighted information can not be used but your sources are using it, besides it is not against the law to be unaccredited, here is the statement fro the U S Dept of Education and please note that accreditation is not an endorsement of better education. This silly application about Texas law does not affect the law in 49 other States, Now remove! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saltonking44 (talk • contribs)

Information from copyrighted sources can be used on Wikipedia. What can't be used is the copyrighted text; we can't copy prose wholesale from other sites. As for the Texas law, given that they tend to be the most stringent about vetting medical schools, that's why it's relevant to mention in the article. —C.Fred (talk) 02:36, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. 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.

Valfontis (talk) 21:25, 29 May 2014 (UTC)