![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Motion to completely erase this site, as it does not subscribe to crazy Wiki rules about point of view or whatever these howling autistics have determined are their pseudo-academic rules for editing. Regardless of the mysteries of the wikipedia editorial process, this page is self serving and completely biased. Seriously, wiki-nerds, engage in whatever arcane and byzantine process you do to eliminate the tripe on this page. 65.111.127.30 ( talk) 04:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
this is basically the pre-packaged admissions material in wiki form —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.220.193 ( talk) 22:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Yo Charlie that's the problem the editing guidelines are too documented and become a process too complicated and full of buzz words that don't apply to real world editing or academic writing. Besides, this wiki is an advertisement, pure and simple. I second my own motion for deleting this POS. 65.111.127.30 ( talk) 02:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Seconding this. This school and other schools like it are closer to diploma mills than to legitimate institutions and their students' job prospects reflect that, with the added bonus that a diploma mill won't usually charge a graduate $100,000+ in non-dischargeable student loans. A page that's closer to an advertisement than a real article both detracts from the usefulness of Wikipedia as a whole and does potential students a life-long disservice. This dog should not be allowed to live. 208.120.137.216 ( talk) 17:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I wonder if some unemployed, debt-ridden, "lawyer" is taking his frustration out on a wikipedia talk page because he couldn't hack it in a man's game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.135.194.58 ( talk) 02:59, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
It looks like somebody's coming back and reverting to the admissions-office-sanitized version again, from an IP that's had no other contributions. I'm still kind of new at this whole wiki thing, but given what seems to be a consensus here that the current version is close to unsalvagable in terms of point of view, I'm going to revert to the 04:36, 10 December 2009 version. "Be bold" and all that. If I'm screwing something up, or that's unsatisfactory for some reason, please do let me know why. 67.160.77.37 ( talk) 00:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I have reverted as a lot of information was removed and information removed the article has issues .Asked for expert and rewrite. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 00:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Pharoh, you are literally reverting to a version of this page authored by the admissions office, see: http://ws.arin.net/whois/?queryinput=152.228.175.77 Such self-interested editing should not be permitted even with disclaimers. 209.2.228.115 ( talk) 22:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree completely, a version of the page done by the admissions office or anyone affiliated with the school is a clear conflict of interest and does not have a place in an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.132.191 ( talk) 18:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I am going through the page in order to removed unsourced statements of propaganda, as well as verifying that the sourced information supports the text. Apparently merely citing to the Valpo Law Homepage does not support broad claims of greatness - who knew! -TBD
because some wiki admin wanted me to justify my edits here, I'll note several of the notes above are mine from before I made an account, specifically 209.2.228.115 EvilweaselSA ( talk) 16:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello, posting in the "complaint" section to note that I'm undoing propaganda edits that have been once again added. TheBestDeception ( talk) 22:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Rachelbirnbaum, we're attempting to alter this page to better reflect a neutral point of view, and it would be great if you didn't keep reverting it to the exact same page without any input here. EvilweaselSA ( talk) 22:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Removed Carl Brizzi from notable alumni list, as elected county prosecutor is not very notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.216.70.49 ( talk) 02:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I've removed the lede sentence beginning with "While these rankings..." [1]. This is OR/SYNTH, since the conclusions stated in the article cannot possibly be gleaned from the source charts. Not that I doubt that rankings are controversial. Speaking of which, if rankings are to be treated at all, they should not rely only on one source and arguably should not be noted in the lede unless the ranking itself has notability.
As a comment on "Notable faculty"/"Notable alumni" - so far as I'm aware, the inclusion criteria are any of 1) wikilinked article with sourced proof they are/were faculty/alumni; wikilink with the proof of affiliation sourced here (should be in the person's article anyway, but can be duplicated here if someone asks); if the name is not wikilinked, some very solid sources showing the affiliation and the notability. Note here that the last option will be rare, the mere fact that you graduated and were then noted in a press release when you joined a firm will not necessarily be sufficient. But at the very least, I'd want to see proof that the person actually graduated and/or taught there. Franamax ( talk) 04:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I've made a few changes to reflect a informational and neutral tone. If anyone has any questions, please let me know. Jefe317 ( talk) 20:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Motion to completely erase this site, as it does not subscribe to crazy Wiki rules about point of view or whatever these howling autistics have determined are their pseudo-academic rules for editing. Regardless of the mysteries of the wikipedia editorial process, this page is self serving and completely biased. Seriously, wiki-nerds, engage in whatever arcane and byzantine process you do to eliminate the tripe on this page. 65.111.127.30 ( talk) 04:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
this is basically the pre-packaged admissions material in wiki form —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.220.193 ( talk) 22:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Yo Charlie that's the problem the editing guidelines are too documented and become a process too complicated and full of buzz words that don't apply to real world editing or academic writing. Besides, this wiki is an advertisement, pure and simple. I second my own motion for deleting this POS. 65.111.127.30 ( talk) 02:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Seconding this. This school and other schools like it are closer to diploma mills than to legitimate institutions and their students' job prospects reflect that, with the added bonus that a diploma mill won't usually charge a graduate $100,000+ in non-dischargeable student loans. A page that's closer to an advertisement than a real article both detracts from the usefulness of Wikipedia as a whole and does potential students a life-long disservice. This dog should not be allowed to live. 208.120.137.216 ( talk) 17:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I wonder if some unemployed, debt-ridden, "lawyer" is taking his frustration out on a wikipedia talk page because he couldn't hack it in a man's game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.135.194.58 ( talk) 02:59, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
It looks like somebody's coming back and reverting to the admissions-office-sanitized version again, from an IP that's had no other contributions. I'm still kind of new at this whole wiki thing, but given what seems to be a consensus here that the current version is close to unsalvagable in terms of point of view, I'm going to revert to the 04:36, 10 December 2009 version. "Be bold" and all that. If I'm screwing something up, or that's unsatisfactory for some reason, please do let me know why. 67.160.77.37 ( talk) 00:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I have reverted as a lot of information was removed and information removed the article has issues .Asked for expert and rewrite. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 00:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Pharoh, you are literally reverting to a version of this page authored by the admissions office, see: http://ws.arin.net/whois/?queryinput=152.228.175.77 Such self-interested editing should not be permitted even with disclaimers. 209.2.228.115 ( talk) 22:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree completely, a version of the page done by the admissions office or anyone affiliated with the school is a clear conflict of interest and does not have a place in an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.132.191 ( talk) 18:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I am going through the page in order to removed unsourced statements of propaganda, as well as verifying that the sourced information supports the text. Apparently merely citing to the Valpo Law Homepage does not support broad claims of greatness - who knew! -TBD
because some wiki admin wanted me to justify my edits here, I'll note several of the notes above are mine from before I made an account, specifically 209.2.228.115 EvilweaselSA ( talk) 16:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello, posting in the "complaint" section to note that I'm undoing propaganda edits that have been once again added. TheBestDeception ( talk) 22:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Rachelbirnbaum, we're attempting to alter this page to better reflect a neutral point of view, and it would be great if you didn't keep reverting it to the exact same page without any input here. EvilweaselSA ( talk) 22:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Removed Carl Brizzi from notable alumni list, as elected county prosecutor is not very notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.216.70.49 ( talk) 02:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I've removed the lede sentence beginning with "While these rankings..." [1]. This is OR/SYNTH, since the conclusions stated in the article cannot possibly be gleaned from the source charts. Not that I doubt that rankings are controversial. Speaking of which, if rankings are to be treated at all, they should not rely only on one source and arguably should not be noted in the lede unless the ranking itself has notability.
As a comment on "Notable faculty"/"Notable alumni" - so far as I'm aware, the inclusion criteria are any of 1) wikilinked article with sourced proof they are/were faculty/alumni; wikilink with the proof of affiliation sourced here (should be in the person's article anyway, but can be duplicated here if someone asks); if the name is not wikilinked, some very solid sources showing the affiliation and the notability. Note here that the last option will be rare, the mere fact that you graduated and were then noted in a press release when you joined a firm will not necessarily be sufficient. But at the very least, I'd want to see proof that the person actually graduated and/or taught there. Franamax ( talk) 04:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I've made a few changes to reflect a informational and neutral tone. If anyone has any questions, please let me know. Jefe317 ( talk) 20:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC)