User talk:Adrin10
dear Adrin 10 The article is full of wrong information and many of the cited references are old and have been challenged and rectified Quotations laws are no longer present as a new federal law came into force January 1, 2015. The new cantonal law cited was challenged in the Federal Court in Lausanne (the Supreme Court) as unconstitutional. The list of the Italian Ministry dates back to 1993 and is no longer current. You have not mentioned that the Polytechnic has been recognized ,the judgment of the Federal Administrative Court in August 2013 established that Politecnico has been recognized in the Swiss university system. You have not mentioned quality certification ISO 9001 2008 and Eduqua. The reference number 4 is not about the Politecnico. the article cited as a reference 8 has been challenged by a reply published on the same site as the Cimea that you have not published. the reference 11 cites an article that is not about the Politecnico the references 5 cites the list of CRUS that the Federal Administrative Court ruled to have no legal value The reference 9 cites the list of DECS that is not a list of the recognized universities but only of those accredited. the judgment cited in reference 12 has not refused accreditation after a quality control negative but ruled that it is not possible in principle apply for accreditation of individual courses without first having received institutional accreditation. I can send desired suits references needed to prove what I have written to your personal e-mail because you can verify and publish them.Equni (talk) 13:02, 17 March 2015 (UTC) Equni (talk) 13:02, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Dear Adrin10, I have been trying to edit the Wikipedia page for University of the People to make it more accurate, but my changes keep getting reverted by you. I have provided explanations of my changes as well, and again, you have reverted the changes with no explanation from your side. The page that you are citing is a fake website, where the domain name and author of the website has been blocked. Moreover, you have now removed the university partnerships, saying there is no evidence for such partnerships, even though you can find them under the university press releases and the media coverage sections on the university website (one example: https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/berkeley-accept-university-people-graduates) . I would appreciate learning how we can work together to create the most accurate representation of University of the People on Wikipedia.Edudent (talk) 12:39, 7 November 2017 (UTC)Edudent
- If you are talking about University of California, Berkeley, all the affiliated institutions are mentioned in the official website, where your school has never been mentioned so far, though. --Adrin10 (talk) 20:24, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. Interesting point, I will investigate it. It's strange because I can see UC Berkeley Chancellor Nicholas Dirks announcing it but I will check. I will check it for all partnerships just to be on the safe side. Can we now continue together the dialogue and explore our other disagreements together?Edudent (talk) 16:50, 10 November 2017 (UTC)Edudent
I looked into UC Berkeley's website and I cannot see anywhere a place where they write all their formal agreements with all other universities. and Can you send me the link to it.Edudent (talk) 12:53, 14 November 2017 (UTC)Edudent
Complaint of edit warring at University of the People[edit]
Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Adrin10 reported by User:Weatherextremes (Result: ). You may respond at the noticeboard if you wish. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 05:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
January 2018[edit]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on University of the People. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
Please note that if you continue to cause disruption by reverting others' edits, you will be blocked without further warning. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 14:42, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
- If I had not reverted your latest edit before I saw the report at AN3, I would have blocked you for continuing to edit-war after being warned. Please stop and wait for resolution by consensus. Acroterion (talk) 18:21, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
- Stop doing this [1]]. Acroterion (talk) 18:23, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. NeilN talk to me 15:49, 23 January 2018 (UTC)A page you started (Yorker International University) has been reviewed![edit]
Thanks for creating Yorker International University, Adrin10!
Wikipedia editor Cwmhiraeth just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
Interesting article!
To reply, leave a comment on Cwmhiraeth's talk page.
Learn more about page curation.
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:56, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]
Hello, Adrin10. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]
Hello, Adrin10. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)