Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:58, 9 August 2006

Archives
Archive 1

Regarding Disputes of Accuracy

ODA

I am removing the reference to the ODA from the page. It does not meet the standards of Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources. They do not reference where the information for this page is obtained or provide any references to appropriate research or materials. Until they can do this it should not be a part of this article. Spike 09:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

SCCM is on Oregon's list of "Unaccredited Degree Suppliers." This information was presented in the article and cited with a link to the ODA page, nothing more. The adjacent text was not included because of the difficulty in verifying that information. But the fact stands that SCCM remains on Oregon's "Unaccredited" list, so I don't think graduates would be able to practice medicine in Oregon. It's a government agency publication, so I think that it would qualify as a reliable source. In order to prevent an edit war, I'll refrain from reverting, however, I would like to get a consensus on the reliability of this source, as well as the appropriateness of the inclusion of the simple undisputable fact that SCCM is in fact on the "Unaccredited" list. Leuko

Just because SCCM is listed on a webpage doesn't mean that it's an appropriate or reliable source, this is mentioned in Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources. The fact that it's a state gov. page doesn't automatically mean that it's reliable either. They don't source their information or provide any reference of any kind. It's the same as if I created a page and said "SCIMD is the premiere offshore medical school in the world" and didn't provide a source. I can list the fact that a webpage says "SCIMD is the premiere offshore medical school in the world" but if I don't source or provide reference for the statement or inclusion on that page, it means nothing and has no place in an encyclopedic entry. Spike 17:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

In order to resolve this I suggest we seek[REDACTED] administration input for the final say on whether this is considered a reliable source or not. Spike 17:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's an official government publication on the web, and since it has implications for graduates licensibility in Oregon, I feel it is important to include it in the article. If anyone has concerns about SCCM being included on the ODA's webpage as an "Unaccredited" school, then they should take it up with the ODA, but the simple, undisputable fact is that it is there. I agree that more input should be sought to build a consensus among editors, so I've submitted a request for comment. Leuko 17:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Just because you feel it's appropriate to include it doesn't mean that it is. The matter has been brought up with the ODA and litigation is pending against the ODA and the individual at the ODA that is responsible for maintaining that page. Just because it’s there doesn’t mean it’s accurate or appropriate for this article. If the consensus from the[REDACTED] admin is that it be put back then it should at least include a disclaimer saying “the ODA does not disclose the research or sources for their website and should not be considered an accurate source of information”. Spike 17:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Just because you don't feel that it is appropriate or accurate, doesn't mean that it shouldn't be included. Can you please provide a reference for this pending litigation (does Oregon put pending civil cases online?), though it really wouldn't mean much. Just because there may be a civil suit pending doesn't mean the information is inaccurate or SC's position on the "Unaccredited" schools list is undeserved. Leuko 17:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

It also doesn't mean that the information is accurate, the sources or research methods used were valid or that being on the list is deserved since they don't bother to indicate anything about how they collect data. If I’m not mistaken the individual responsible for maintaining the ODA website is known for being unreliable and using inappropriate sources and unverified information. Spike 20:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

You are certainly entitled to your opinion on the ODA, its data collection methods, and its employees. However, the fact remains that SCCM is on the ODA's list of "Unaccredited colleges." While some may dispute the reasons why it is on the list, no one can dispute that it is on the list. In keeping with WP:NPOV, the edit that I made said simply that it was on the list. I did not give any personal opinions because it was on the list, say it was a bad school because it was on the list, or anything else negative (not even that graduates will likely not be able to be licensed in Oregon). I just said it was on the list. Since the fact that it is on the list, I feel that it meets the standards of WP:V, since the page is published by the government agency responsible for assessing the validity of degrees in Oregon, which is the list they would go by should a graduate attempt to get licensed in Oregon. Leuko 21:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

But just being listed is insufficient for the inclusion of such inflammatory information which is not neutral by nature and has bias attached to it. Data needs to be verified and proven. We will just have to wait for the[REDACTED] admins. to make a call on this. Spike 21:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

But it is verified and proven that SCCM is on the list. Including that information is not inflammatory or biased, it is just being truthful and fully disclosing all information so that prospective students can evaluate their options should they wish to be licensed in Oregon some day. Alright, we are talking in circles, so let's see if the RfC brings anything. If not, I guess we'll have to go to the arbitration committee with this one. Leuko 22:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

not agreeing with a govt. agency, such as ODA, doesn't make their findings wrong. ANY govt. statements about SCIMD should be reflected and your decision to remove them and slander ODA is inappropriate. You can cite no lawsuits since there are none. azskeptic --Azskeptic 00:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Eggman, but your opinions can't be taken into consideration in this matter since you contribute to what is on the ODA page and thus cannot represent a neutral community POV. Someone who is responsible for material on a page that is being disputed shouldn't weigh in on whether it is valid or not. Spike 16:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Spike, again that you don't agree with the State of Oregon or other legally ordained sites doesn't change the fact that the official sites show SC as not being recognized. Trust that Misplaced Pages administration will carefully study this. --Azskeptic 17:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

You don't deny that you are a contributor to the ODA page, an inappropriate one, but one none the less, and are thus a non-neutral in this discussion which means you cannot have a say in this discussion as a neutral community contributor. Spike 21:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Again you use insults and uninformed judgements to try and belittle my work. Sad indeed. --Azskeptic 23:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you go to SC? if so, you too aren't neutral. --Azskeptic 22:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any educational or formal background in medical/health sciences education or training, Azskeptic? if not, you aren't qualified.--Vtak 00:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

You are not in a position to qualify or disqualify. This talk section is not an appropriate place to discuss qualifications. Read the TOS of Misplaced Pages. --Azskeptic 00:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

First, there is no specific TOS for wikipedia, that I can find. So, please find me a copy of that, just link it here. Secondly, you are a public figure, of some sort, and discussing your qualifications, when you openly claim to be a consumer advocate for offshore medical colleges (@ ),is not an inappropriate issue to bring up.--Vtak 00:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Five_pillars --Azskeptic 06:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages's standard is verifiability, not truth. It's not up to us to determine whether what a source says is true or not. The only question is whether or not it qualifies as a reliable source according to Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources, and the fact that it's a government website should certainly qualify. If another source disputes what's said here, we can include that as an opposing point. Fagstein 01:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

That's the problem, we can't say if it qualifies or not under Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources. I couldn't find anything in Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources that discuss .gov websites or their content. That's why[REDACTED] administrative input was requested for a final say. Spike 02:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think most people on Misplaced Pages would agree that .gov websites are reliable sources, but did you put in a mediation or arbitration request? If so, where is it, since I think all interested parties need to sign it. Leuko 02:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, an administrative arbitration request was put in. You can locate it if you want to comment. Spike 20:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I can't find it, so I will put one in. Leuko 23:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Maine

Spike, you apparently have taken it upon yourself to remove ANY link you don't like I posted the state of Maine's inclusion of your school and you removed it also http://mainegov-images.informe.org/education/highered/Non-Accredited/UnaccreditedSchools-042706.pdf Where is a state website in violation of Misplaced Pages's rules? --Azskeptic 16:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Try reading the edit history. I reverted the page because the Maine list uses the ODA for reference. Since the discussion on the ODA has not come to a resolution it was inappropriate to include that link in the article. Plus, you added it in the wrong section. It's not a simple external link. It should have been included in the text of the article with a reference at the end. However, this shouldn't be done until resolution is met regarding the ODA. If you add it again before the discussion regarding the ODA is completed I will remove it.

Also, will you please learn how to discuss things properly here? I know you have various challenges, but it shouldn’t stop you from being able to handle this. You don't just start a new conversation in the middle of another one. It's bad form and it's incorrect. Your blurb had nothing to do with forums and BBS's so including it in the heading of forums and bulletin boards is inappropriate. Do you understand now? If you can't do it right, don't do it at all. Spike 21:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Pray tell what my challenges are and what affect they would have on participating in a discussion group. I am indeed new to Misplaced Pages. Reference Maine, please show where they say they reflect ODA. I see nothing there and if you choose to continue removing state or country pages that you don't like I will request that the site be taken back to contested status.--Azskeptic 22:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

AZskeptic as I understand you have no educational or formal background in medical education or any health sciences field and especially no relation whatsoever with this college, so why are you so adamant on edited out material from current students and alumni. I would please appreciate you refraining from do that or I will ahve to report you.--Vtak 23:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I have edited NO material. You are in violation of TOS by listing my name in your post. Please edit it immediately. You don't know my qualifications nor my role so you are working from false assumptions.--Azskeptic 00:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It says it right here that they use the ODA to construct their list:

http://www.maine.gov/education/highered/Non-Accredited/non-accredited.htm

"The Maine Department of Education gratefully acknowledges assistance provided by both the Oregon Office of Degree Authorization and the State of Michigan Department of Civil Service for sharing resources related to state, national and international non-accredited institutions."

As such, it is inappropriate to put that link in the article until the question regarding the ODA has been resolved.

Regardless, the only link that would be acceptable is the one below:

http://www.maine.gov/education/highered/Non-Accredited/UnaccreditedSchools-042706.pdf

It is the official PDF from the Maine Gov. education site. Spike 15:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

So does that mean that there is a consensus to link the Maine pdf? How about the Oregon list then? Leuko 19:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no consensus. I am saying it can't be put up since it references the ODA which is still being debated. Spike 21:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I still don't get how people can debate the accuracy and reliability of official government sources for Misplaced Pages... Leuko 00:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

If you don't get it by now, you never will. Just because it has a .gov ending doesn't mean it's valid or reliable. Spike 01:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, let's see if someone without bias comes along to provide an opinion. Leuko 01:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe that's what we are waiting for at this time. Spike 01:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I've put in a request for a 3rd opinion, but if that doesn't happen within the next few days, we'll have to try another method of dispute resolution. Leuko 01:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge this had already gone to an administrative arbitration and is currently being debated. Spike 01:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

No debate going on in arbitration. Still waiting for Spike to agree to arbitration. --Azskeptic 00:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Just for clarification, there is currently a request for mediation, not arbitration. Spike does not appear to be interested in mediation, since he has simply deleted the requests from his talk page without response. The next step in the dispute resolution process would be arbitration. Leuko 03:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Mediation is a waste of time. If we could work through this without admin input we would have done it by now, obviously we can't. Arbitration is what will allow a final ruling about the validity of .gov sources that use unverified and undocumented research and sources as well as all the other issues regarding this article and will allow for a final entry to be constructed. Spike 01:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Licensed Graduates

I've removed the phrase regarding licensed graduates/residents matching via the NRMP due to lack of citations in accordance with WP:V. While it might be true, it is not verified, and that is the standard for inclusion on Misplaced Pages. I agree 34 citations (are there that many already? Wouldn't have guessed) would be a bit much, but how about a few representative ones? Leuko 15:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I realize the need for citations in most cases, however this is a case of past graduates who are currently practising after being allowed by their state's licensing board... it is open information and the interested individuals can always log onto State medical boards and look for them in details... I am sorry, we don't have permission from those graduates ( at least the ones i could contact) to put their names or contacts up here, however they did state that they wouldn't mind being referred to in the manner done by me, so with regard to their privacy, we have had to do this.--Vtak 19:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Then I am afraid we will have to remove it, since it is in blatant violation of WP:V, since you are not willing to cite your sources. While I agree it may be true, that doesn't matter on Misplaced Pages. It need to be cited and verifiable. From the policy:

The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is thus verifiability, not truth.

A good way to look at the distinction between verifiability and truth is with the following example. Suppose you are writing a Misplaced Pages entry on a famous physicist's Theory X, which has been published in peer-reviewed journals and is therefore an appropriate subject for a Misplaced Pages article. However, in the course of writing the article, you contact the physicist and he tells you: "Actually, I now believe Theory X to be completely false." Even though you have this from the author himself, you cannot include the fact that he said it in your Misplaced Pages entry.

Why not? Because it is not verifiable in a way that would satisfy the Misplaced Pages readership or other editors. The readers don't know who you are. You can't include your telephone number so that every reader in the world can call you for confirmation. And even if they could, why should they believe you?

For the information to be acceptable to Misplaced Pages you would have to persuade a reputable news organization to publish your story first, which would then go through a process similar to peer review. It would be checked by a reporter, an editor, perhaps by a fact-checker, and if the story were problematic, it might be checked further by the lawyers and the editor-in-chief. These checks and balances exist to ensure that accurate and fair stories appear in the newspaper.

--Leuko 20:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, it is open information and any curious individuals can go to State Boards and verify them... look at SGU and other small medical college's articles none have it... So it is not unverifiable and is being posted back on--Vtak 20:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

If the information is so open, what is the problem with citing sources? Leuko 20:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

there is a technical problem... u can cite the state board websites but not the searched content and to find that u need to go thru the subcategories and find the grads, if they want their names released... try it and u will see what i mean... unless the names can be released, which is not fair to them, without hindering their privacy, searches have to be made in a long enduring way.... Again, not many medical colleges here cite their sources, so why pick on SCCM? Get everyone to do it.--Vtak 21:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not "picking on" SCCM. It just happened to catch my attention for the many omissions as originally written, and I am just trying to make it the most accurate article possible. I added citations to the SGU article since you mentioned it, any other schools while I am at it? Leuko 00:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Vtak is correct. It isn't possible to link the information directly since it is part of a database that relies on a setup which prevents it from being linked directly. Spike 21:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it possible to append a query string to link the record of interest? Most databases are set up this way. Can you provide links to the state databases where SCCM grads have been licensed? I can probably get it to work. Leuko 00:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

You're more than welcome to try, but it isn't possible. Each search has it's own query and the query expires shortly after the search. Spike 01:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not required that a source be accessible online to be reliable. It does, however, need to be properly cited (see Misplaced Pages:Citing sources). Fagstein 02:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Many vs. All US States

As requested, I would like to discuss the revert User:Vtak made deleting "most states in the US," and replacing it with verbiage that implies that SCIMD grads are licensable in all US states. This is clearly not the case, and can be verified. California doesn't recognize the school (as well as other states that use California's list), and Oregon/Maine state the school is unaccredited. Kansas is a no, because of the 15-year rule, and I am not sure about Texas or Florida. I thought "most" was pretty NPOV (in comparision to "some"), and represented a fair compromise given the verified facts. The paragraph later on is misleading, since it seems to indicate that SCIMD grads can get licensed in all but two states, which is not the case. Leuko 17:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't oppose the use of "most", it's a fact. Spike 01:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Format

I disagree with the changes you have made to the format of the page. Why are you removing entries from the table on the right side of the page? It is meant to be a "quick facts" box, so it doesn't matter if it contains data that is also present in the main body of the article. Spike 16:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

True, but the data presented has a bit more history and is a bit more complicated than something which lends itself to a "quick facts" box. That's why I feel it more appropriate to flesh out these "facts" with the associated caveats in the text. Also Luton is mentioned (and linked multiple times. Is that really necessary? Leuko 17:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not necessary, but that can be said of many of the "quick facts" boxes on Misplaced Pages. Any elaboration on the data in the "quick facts" box can be made in the main article. Since it has been a part of this article for some time (and thus the status quo) and it is a matter of style, unless you can demonstrate a compelling reason to remove the content, it should remain.Spike 17:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Then I suggest we go with the 2000/2006 for the date, as we have had for some time, to clear up some of the ambuiguity since SC-IMD did not exist as a named entity in 2000. Leuko 17:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, 2000/2006 is confusing for a "quick facts" box. The explination can be made in the main text, as I said above. Spike 17:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, then we should probably remove it until we can come up with a consensus, or until someone can prove that SC-IMD existed in 2000. Leuko 17:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

No. The IMED listing is all that is needed. It shows that we existed in 2000. According to my understanding of[REDACTED] rules, unless an editor can justify why they want an edit, the original material remains. Feel free to get[REDACTED] administrative feedback on this but I am going to make sure that it remains as part of the article unless they state otherwise. Spike 20:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I am fine with the current edit that states in the text that prior to 2006, degrees were awarded by SCCM, and not SC-IMD (since it did not exist.) However, I still don't think that the 2000 in the info box should be there - it is rather misleadeding. If the article was about SCCM, then it would be fine, but SC-IMD as a named entity did not exist in 2000. Sure, it's just a name (and possibly admin) change, but I believe[REDACTED] should be as accurate as possible. Leuko 21:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, we will have to agree to disagree unless you want a[REDACTED] administrator to arbitrate the situation. For a "quick facts" box it seems perfectly fine. The explination is in the body of the text so no one is being mislead. Spike 21:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree it is a minor point, but I just want to make sure that the information presented is as accurate and non-confusing as possible. Like I said before, I have put in a RfC, so we'll see if any other editors stop by to add their third-party opinion on the matter. Leuko 21:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we'll just have to wait to see what the admins. say about it. Spike 21:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, it's not admins -- just other users (editors). Leuko 21:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't seem like that would be much help, we need more of a final decision. Spike 22:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I thought the point was to generate a community consensus on the issue. I don't think there is any authoritarian "final decision." I guess we could take it to the arbitration committee, but I don't think we are there yet. Let's see what kind of 3rd party input the RfC generates first. Leuko 22:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I can't fault your logic, hopefully this will be resolved soon. Spike 22:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Spike here, the column should stay the way it is right now...It is more concise and easy to follow and that's how most smaller colleges are setup in Misplaced Pages. --Vtak 00:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The format of the box is fine - the information presented is not 100% accurate though. Leuko 15:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

While you may feel that is true, all the individuals that have commented on this issue disagree with you, thus it will remain as it is, unless others care to comment on this or this goes to the wikiadmin for arbitration. Spike 01:21, 3 August 2006 (UTc)

I don't see anything wrong with the content of the box, please explain and let everyone consider it prior to trying anything drastic with the article again. thanks--Vtak 01:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Explanation is above. Is there anything I can make clearer? SC-IMD did not exist in 2000, SCCM did. Leuko 01:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes it did Leuko. The Master College existed formally since 2000. Renaming something as a branch campus or affiliate does not change its master charter. I gather you are learning on the fly here so let me tell you what the courts say: SCIMD existed, either with different names or leadership since 2000.

I tried posting this but was told we need group concensus on it. This is from the UK D&B equivalent site showing that the SC IMD corporation began in 2006

http://www.ukdata.com/company-credit-reports/ST.-CHRISTOPHER-IBA-MAR-DIOP-COLLEGE-OF-MEDICINE-LIMITED.html

anyone opposed to showing that the school was incorporated 2006? --Azskeptic 17:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Well moreover discuss the relevance and need for this addition to this article. Why post it on there?

My opinion is that it is really not needed and unless there is a dire need of this information to be shown, as will be seen by the posts here.... it don't think it is needed. It's like posting published results of housing reports in a town on here or putting published journal articles of health concerns in large habitus individuals articles like long-term genital malformations and lack of LGI tract cleanliness, especially rectoanal portion... IT is just not needed.... it could be relevant but not needed.--Vtak 17:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

It shows the age of the school to potential students. By the way if concensus is required the present format that is on the page doesn't meet my approval as it doesn't reflect the information that is available from govt. agencies.--Azskeptic 18:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Potential students!!!!! Sir, this is not a place to be advertising a college... this is an online encyclopedia.... I think with that in lightl, this information could definitely not be posted on here as it will advertise the college to potential students.... --Vtak 18:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Has nothing to do with advertising. Students need clear concise correct information to make valid decisions. sanitized pages,like the current one, lack basic facts that are verifiable and available.--Azskeptic 18:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry, but the formal entity up for debate and discussion was organized in 2000. You know that yourself. Since your personal vendetta is accuracy, why not open up your own WIKI entry to editing so people can put verifiable entries on their about the claims of your affiliation with pedophile groups? Its just as valid since it can be verified. The University itself was formed in 2000, the world health org lists it as 2000. Everything you say to the contrary is not valid, irrelevant, and again, a personal vendetta against the students, faculty, and staff. Get help. Every University has reincorp papers on other colleges all the time. Your claim is invalid and spurious. give it up.

As usual on numerous forums you resort to personal attacks instead of deal with the reality. SC IMD can be verified as being incorporated in 2006 pure and simple. --Azskeptic 19:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The new business entity was incorp. in 2006, not the school. Learn to tell the difrerence. Spike 19:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Spike is correct..there was NO SCIMD prior to 2006. --Azskeptic 19:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The school did, the corp didn't, get it straight! Spike 19:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The college in the name SCIMD has existed from 2000 in Senegal, however, in 2006, the parent UEIN decided to change the name of the English campus to SCIMD from SCCM... now, for this to occur for business purposes, the college reincorporated into SCIMD... the Senegal charter is a proof provided by the Minister of Education in Senegal which has encompassed the prior and current named college. This is a minute change which has been nothing but a technical happening, using it will misguide individuals is not fair.... IMED listing is a second piece of evidence which shows the SCIMD change from SCCM and says it was formerly called the latter name. If someone is extremely interested in searching and trying to prove this wrong is welcomed to call the Ministry of Education in Senegal and asking them or calling the parent administration at the UEIN or SCIMD-Sen. Now please, misguiding is not an appropriate thing to do on an encyclopedia.. and again, please, this is not a site for advertising and should not be prepared as an advertising tool for prospective students... as indicated a few post above--Vtak 20:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Changes in Administration

Spike, any truth to student reports that the school's administrator is out and the school is being taken over by a former student and middle east investors? --Azskeptic 23:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

no I didn't hear that...last i heard an American Senator from the Southwest had got some investors to join in this venture. Where did u hear that Askeptic?--Vtak 00:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

2 different students called me today with basically the same story. Who knows...is F. out as administrator?--Azskeptic 01:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss this as it has nothing to do with the article. Please take it somewhere else. Spike 01:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

If the administration changes is it correct to post the change on the description of the school? This directly affects readers of the page. --130.13.1.64 02:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

If anyone can find a source that meets WP:V and Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources which discusses an administrative change at SCIMD, I would welcome it. Until such a time, it is nothing more than idle gossip and nonsense, and thus has no place in an encyclopedic entry. Spike 05:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration

Since the other methods of dispute resolution have not worked so far, I've put in a request for arbitration. Please go to the page to add your statements.

Leuko 18:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)