Auditguy

Welcome!

Hello, Auditguy, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for International Institute for Management Development. 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 {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hello Auditguy, I seek your help to understand how Geneva Business School is allowed to use wikipedia for its marketing. 1 - The page is written by marketing officer of the company. 2 - Even though they are not recognised by the state they promote their accreditation by unrelevant accreditation body. 3 - Their ranking are all non recognised / commercial ranking, pay and get ranked model. 4 - The partnerships they announce doesn't exist.

To me it's breaking the 2 first pillars of Wikipedia. What do you think ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muradin ch (talk • contribs) 22:43, 13 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello Auditguy.

Oh my, it appears I made a bit of a mistake :( I accidentally reverted the wrong edit! It looks like the article was originally vandalised by 115.249.68.50 (talk · contribs), then the vandalism was reverted by 27.4.34.93 (talk · contribs). However, I seem to have made a mistake and reverted the edits by 27.4.34.93, leaving the original vandalism! Anyway, long story short I think I got it all fixed up now. If anything is still wrong, feel free to put up another post on my talk page. Happy editing (and thanks for the heads up)! Millermk90 (talk) 02:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hello Auditguy,

I think the existing content is fair enough to support the fact.

Kristina — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.138.203.50 (talk) 06:02, 6 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi Auditguy, I agree with your edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=European_University&diff=587906915&oldid=587901025 - but was not sure about doing it myself so I left it since it was done by Orlady who seems to know her stuff.

Please note I have updated the Talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:European_University to layout my issues with the frequent updating of the Accreditation section. If you have a moment to give me your opinion, it would be welcomed.

Regards, Swissjane (talk) 13:01, 27 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yes, Orlady certainly knows her stuff! She's great and a very helpful administrator too. I have left a note on her talk page regarding this specific edit as an update and will leave it with her to see if she is agreeable. I've seen your comments on the EU talk page and it seems reasonable. Audit Guy (talk) 13:32, 27 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Right, thanks! Will inform her too. Regards! Swissjane (talk) 15:37, 27 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

• Hi Auditguy - i saw your feedback in EU, do you have any additions to the rest of the talk about [1] and/or [2] ? Regards! J. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swissjane (talk • contribs) 11:57, 7 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

I'm still of the opinion that moving the German database Anabin paragraph to the Controversies Section would be more appropriate to provide continuity. Audit Guy (talk) 12:18, 7 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Right! thanks. Regards, J. Swissjane (talk) 12:47, 7 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

• Thanks for your thanks Auditguy. I must admit the different interpretations of the content on this article concern me, especially since I have been reading other campuses pages (Webster University Geneva !). Seems EU is being punished for something ;-) Anyway, the OAQ issue has nothing to do in an individual page IMHO. And the wrongful transcription of the article needs to be addressed but swissjane is leading that. I would love to understand better what's happening here. Anyway, have a great week-end! Jana.Janasommer (talk) 14:28, 9 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

• Hi Auditguy, you removed a new source and the balanced proposal i made to add the source, after its addition by 2 new users. Agree not all needs to be listed but it seems the Controversy section of this article is not fair when we have a clean source saying something about this. I find it fair and relevant to add to article because of that - and seems 2 users did (somehow..) too. Please advise? thanks and best regards! Jana Janasommer (talk) 10:45, 21 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

I replied on Talk:European University.

Thanks :) Jana — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janasommer (talk • contribs) 11:23, 21 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi (and happy new year!). I looked at your cleanup work on the citations at CEEMAN. They no longer strictly qualify as bare urls (hurray!), but the fundamental problem remains -- if the links go dead, there is little chance information to help a person to determine what the links pointed to. A Wikipedia reference citation should look a lot like the citations in an academic journal or in a student's university writings: it should identify author, title, date, publisher, etc. See WP:Citing sources. I've expanded the first and last citations in the article to start the rest of the process. --Orlady (talk) 23:53, 29 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi Orlady, I've done some more clean up of the references based on the website links and updated a deadlink. Could you have a look? Thanks! Audit Guy (talk) 04:34, 1 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. The citation formats won't satisfy the wikignomes, but I believe they satisfy the need to "say where you got it" -- and help future site visitors figure out where the information came from. The bare urls template can now be removed! --Orlady (talk) 05:41, 2 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

  Done

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Emlyn Hughes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tommy Smith (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 18 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

I get it. Blog radio is acceptable for a source but not a blog.$indbad 408 (talk)$indbad 408

I've replied on your talk page. --Audit Guy (talk) 01:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the Thanks. I have to know that one otherwise I have to change my CV. --Kitchen Knife (talk) 13:11, 27 February 2014 (UTC) HND (Computer Studies)Reply

Hi Audit Guy, so when you edited geneva business school, there was already a Talk page. Would have been kind to step in the talk first. There were lots of ip deletions on that page and it was strange - I have nothing against one way or the other, but you not going to talk page hurt my feelings just sayin' ;) So one question, i had noticed you had maintained a 'not-accredited-by' statement on Swiss Management Center not long ago. What is the best approach when updating school pages in you opinion? what accreditation vs. non-accreditation should be kept? Best Janasommer (talk) 19:18, 25 March 2014 (UTC) *same question actually here if you wanted to give me your advice :) Janasommer (talk) 21:12, 25 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

I've replied on your talk page. See [3]. Audit Guy (talk) 03:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi Audit Guy I just made a simple article about ABMS and was deleted and I see now here, i am working there and if somebody wrote an article which was full of advertisments and unclear informations and you deleted doesnt mean you allowed to Delete any article written about ABMS GmbH, OTHERWISE we will Prosecute WIKIPEDIA if this unnecessary jokes stops within next few days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.Agabi (talk • contribs) 17:29, 27 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Kindly refer to your own talkpage for follow-up. Audit Guy (talk) 02:55, 28 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Based on this dif I am providing you formal notice of Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline and will have some comments and questions for you below.

  Hello, Auditguy. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you have an external relationship with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

• Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
• Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
• Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies. Note that Wikipedia's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you.

Since WIkipedia is a widely used reference work, managing conflict of interest is essential for ensuring the integrity of WP, and retaining the public's trust in it.

We manage COI in two steps - disclosure, and a form of peer review.

Would you please let me know if you have any relationship with the Institute of Financial Accountants? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:14, 21 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi Jytdog, Thank you for your comments. I do not have any relationship with the Institute of Financial Accountants. My editing on this article as with other pages are based purely on my interest and knowledge on institutions of higher learning. Audit Guy (talk) 01:56, 22 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for answering. In my view, your removal of the COI tag was not appropriate. Do you see my point? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 02:01, 22 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello Jytdog, I removed the tag as I felt that there was no longer a conflict of interest. Further, I had also communicated on the article's talk page. In any event, I have seen the copy editing and improvements you have since made to the article and appreciate it. Many thanks. Audit Guy (talk) 02:15, 22 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hm. The point of the COI tag is to say that the article needs clean up, as conflicted editors tend to add puffery and unsourced content to articles, as I wrote to you on the Talk page before you removed the tag. The article still needed a lot of clean up when you removed the tag. I hope you are more... judicious going forward with regard to removing CIU tags. Thanks for talking, in any case. Jytdog (talk) 02:32, 22 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi Jytdog, That's a fair enough comment. I was going to do more editing and accept that, more clean up on the article should have been done prior to the COI tage removal. Thanks again. Audit Guy (talk) 02:42, 22 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

lovely, thanks. Jytdog (talk) 02:47, 22 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi there! User:Rich Farmbrough's admin nomination is here. Cheers! David Cannon (talk) 02:17, 28 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

 

education
Thank you, Master of Education, for describing and editing successfully: "business education, distance learning, accreditation issues, research on adult training and development ... correcting grammar, providing accurate referencing and generally tidying up articles to make them more readable", for trust, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:28, 3 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello Gerda Arendt, Thank you very much! It is very kind of you...greatly appreciated!! Audit Guy (talk) 02:44, 4 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

A year ago, you were recipient no. 1258 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:54, 3 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Two years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:29, 3 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Yes! Time flies by very quickly... Audit Guy (talk) 10:13, 3 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Three years ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:09, 3 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi Gerda Arendt (talk), Yes indeed! Hope I have done justice to wikipedia so far!! ;) Audit Guy (talk) 09:38, 3 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Firstly, it's for life - until you severely displease me ;) - I haven't seen you arguing on noticeboards, but quietly taking care of articles such as EU Business School, - thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:29, 3 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Four years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:01, 3 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hello Gerda Arendt (talk), Thank you! Audit Guy (talk) 08:20, 3 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Please check Lehman010 (talk) 04:24, 11 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

To: Lehman010 Please refer to your talk page. I have responded there. Thanks. Audit Guy (talk) 07:04, 11 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi I do not know how to change the web, but I know the information: http://www.eduqua.ch/002alc_0204_en.htm EduQua is issued by ISO 9000 company, to most of them are training companies, if you search you can not find University of Geneva and Lunzern University on web said they are EduQua certification!

The Swiss law only accept AAQ use the word Accrediation! And only AAQ swiss agency for accreditation and quality assurance could accredited higher education and schools! please check: www.aaq.ch https://www.admin.ch/opc/en/classified-compilation/20070429/201501010000/414.20.pdf This the law! Swiss Gov., can not accept ISO 9000 company Accrediation and issued eduqua

Please check it, many thanks, I do not like people know the wrong information, eduqua just a ISO 9000 Compnay label they do something on education, that is all!

Lehman010 (talk) 03:48, 12 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi Lehman010, The article for EduQua clearly states that "EduQua a copy of ISO and a variant of ISO certification". If the two universities you mentioned are not on the EduQua list, you may make an edit to remove them and highlight this in your edit summary. Audit Guy (talk) 11:05, 12 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Can be taken to WP:ANEW, with 3 edotirs reversing it's clear editwarring.Doug Weller talk 05:02, 11 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi Doug Weller. Thanks for the note. I have no experience in taking it up at WP:ANEW. But it's not just Users Crowfurt, Cipack, IAU etc. and but also independent IPs involved in disrupting the article. I don't wish to be involved in an edit war in the least. Audit Guy (talk) 05:44, 11 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at EU Business School. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Elektricity (talk) 02:39, 23 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi Elektricity Please refer to your talk page. User_talk:Elektricity#EU_Business_School Thank you. Audit Guy (talk) 12:33, 27 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, is there a reason why you put this review at the top of the stack instead of, say, at the bottom, because it was a new addition? Naturally you can see how this might look like we're trying to stack the section with good reviews at the top, thus burying criticism, yeah? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:11, 10 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi Cyphoidbomb, Sorry, but there was no particular reason other than placing the reviews in a descending Order. If this is a problem, it can be amended. Thanks. Audit Guy (talk) 10:44, 10 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the response. I would probably just generally ask that if you could keep this in mind going forward, it would be helpful. We actually don't use ratings in most mainstream western films, like Black Panther (film). For whatever reason, (and I think it's laziness from contributors, and maaaaybe some marketing influence) Indian films articles tend to include these, and they almost always get arranged good to bad, which tends to reinforce selection bias. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:58, 11 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello Cyphoidbomb, Thanks for the note. I did wonder about the prevalence of ratings in Indian Films. Anyway, the adjustment has been made. Audit Guy (talk) 08:52, 11 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Precious

Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:45, 3 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Gerda Arendt (talk) Thank you. Glad that I'm still remembered! Audit Guy (talk) 07:48, 3 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Precious

Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:46, 3 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Gerda Arendt (talk) Thank you! Audit Guy (talk) 09:16, 3 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Film collected ₹500 crore.^[1] Add it in article. 103.161.55.3 (talk) 17:21, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:17, 2 May 2024 (UTC)Reply