I'm Jana from Belgium, I windsurf in Europe, eat too many Fries and NEWLY (march 2014) work in the Financial and Legal department of a European Governmental Organization focused on Youth and Education. See you around and have fun!
Janasommer, you are invited to the Teahouse
Hi Janasommer! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! TheOriginalSoni (I'm a Teahouse host)
Hi, Your clean up work on the following articles: Swiss Management Center, SBS Swiss Business School, and Business School Lausanne is appreciated. Good job! Audit Guy (talk) 09:24, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Geneva business School has never said she is accredited by ACBSP. Wednesday 22h49 pm 19 March 2014.
Yes Geneva Business School has a dual diploma with Webber University. You would like to see the agreement? Wednesday 22h49 pm 19 March 2014.
Yes The Program of Geneva Business School are accredited in Barcelona campus and Moscow campus according the IACBE rules. You can Ask IACBE president. Wednesday 22h49 pm 19 March 2014.
If you need more info about Geneva Business School feel free to contact me (Dr Gacem dean@gbsge.com). Wednesday 22h49 pm 19 March 2014. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.4.15.108 (talk) 21:59, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dr Gacem (email: dean@gbsge.com) is writing: Geneva Business School has never said she is accredited by ACBSP. Please contact me dean@gbsge.com if you dont agree. You should stop to write something not true, this is not ethically acceptable. Thursday March 20th 16h28.
Dr Gacem (email: dean@gbsge.com) is writing: Again. Yes The Programs of Geneva Business School are accredited in Barcelona campus and Moscow campus according the IACBE rules. You can Ask IACBE President before than you put something who could be missunderstood. This is not ethically acceptable because IACBE cannot put all the rules and details on its website. IF you dont trust us, and you want to do well your job you have to ask the President of IACBE. Thursday March 20th 17h06.
We are working on changing many thinks in page. It will be refreshed in one week. I delete accidentally what you have put in GBS page. Regards B. Gacem (talk) March 23rd 14:51.
Hello Mr. Janasommer, I am working with B. Gacem, we have updated the Wiki page for GBS, but everytime it is replaced with the old version. Could you please advice on this matter? Regards, Alina — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.3.9.58 (talk) 07:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello 213.3.9., after looking at your contribution I have to say that I feel like it is normal that your edit has been removed... You nearly deleted the entire page to had content you wanted to see while being directly related to GBS since you are part of the staff! First of all, people with an interest for some particular page shouldn't contribute to those since we can't justify objectivity in the content given. In the meantime, you should be careful when uploading content, doing it little by little using as many SOURCES as possible. Best of luck, Janasommer (talk) 16:31, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Modification on Geneva Business School Wikipage has been submitted as follow by 213.3.9.58 at 08:11 server time on April 29th 2014 for a total of minus 446 bytes:
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited European University, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Informatics (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.
Hi Jana, you should have a look at the EU talk page and remove the sources that are not fully verified and required (seems there are some third party 'advertorial' blogs there). Regards, Jane Swissjane (talk) 13:33, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Swissjane - Done. Auditguy removed 2 references, and I just removed an expired one + a link to the official website. Sorry about the slow response (moving!) Best wishes. Jana Janasommer (talk) 10:27, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
BSL runs a Doctorate program of Business Administration ([[Doctor of Business Administration|DBA]] giving candidates the opportunity to work on a global
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited International University in Geneva, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Media (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.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited SBS Swiss Business School, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Master and Graduate (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.
Absolutely, same for you. Do not remove material originally present on article without sourcing it or going to talk page. Paid edits should be disclosed too. Janasommer (talk) 13:51, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced content in any article can be removed without discussion. You have been warned, if you continue to add or restore unsourced controversial content into the article, you may be blocked for editing, BigCat82 (talk) 13:58, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As per Wikipedia guidelines, please bring your deletions of article contents to the talk page and do not break the [3RR]. Oh, and disclose when you are payed to edit. Janasommer (talk) 14:00, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
you already broke the 3RR rule, and this rule is used to prevent edit warring and cannot be used to support your disruptive edit, which is the restoration of unsourced, controversial content. I am not interested in this article but I am a patroller who is familiar with all rules here. Unsourced content can be deleted without any discussion, plain and simple. Also both article talk pages and user talk pages can be used for editing discussion. BigCat82 (talk) 14:07, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Great. So as a patroller, please seek consensus on the talk page of the article - and please do not revert or suppress original content without getting the consensus first. Well, you know that don't you. And no stress, if you are not a payed editor, we can work on this intelligently can we not? Janasommer (talk) 14:12, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. If someone wants to remove or add properly sourced content and one or more other editors don't agree, they need to seek consensus. But no consensus is needed for removing content that is a clear violation of Wikipedia policy, such as the removal of unsourced controversial information. You can't accuse someone or some organization of committing wrong acts without any source here - any addition of unsourced controversial information must be promptly removed. If the institution really blatantly falsely claimed so, you should be able prove it right away. Prove it, then refute it. I am giving you 24 hours to validate your allegations - in fact your content should be immediately removed but you are already tolerated here. BigCat82 (talk) 15:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Look - i was a scientist and now an interior architect. I am not even a native English speaker and I am not even based in Europe. I am not interested in those business school thingy - if you have no reliable source supporting your claims, all your work so far is just original research. BigCat82 (talk) 16:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
BigCat82i think this discussion is now getting steril here. Please stick to the talk page. You know there is no controversial addition of content nor original research. Although i appreciate this is a good tactic to try to attack credibility of edits, i will not be impressed. Please review the facts correctly - i am sure since you are now interior architect you'll need more than half an hour to review the situation. I will also ask additional editors for their opinion. Again, please now revert to talk page, stay civil and focus on the actual article rather than on the editors. thank-you Janasommer (talk) 16:36, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history 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.
My response to this warning is warnBigCat82 who came into an article and with no consensus or discussion engaged into an Edit Warring here, here and here. The more this reaction continues, the more interested i will become in getting facts cleared and looking into payed editing. Janasommer (talk) 14:16, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
as I have said a dozen times, removal of controversial unsourced content doesn't need consensus. You can't accuse someone murderer without any proof. BigCat82 (talk) 14:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
BigCat82, you have not said that a dozen times, you said it when proceeding to abusive reverts 3 times in the course of 1 hour. That being said, you are right, removal of controversial unsourced content is good. In this specific case, the material removed is not controversial, it is relevant to the article - even more since it has been indicated wrongfully for the past 3 years. Let us find a good approach for the readers without leading to incorrect controversies. Happy to see we agree. Let us source and edit from talk page consensus? - thank you. Janasommer (talk) 14:48, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
the case is over as you removed the unsourced controversial content you kept adding to the article, but it makes me sick that you haven't ceased making false claims and attacks on me. My 3 reverts in 24 hours were not a violation of 3RR, while your 6 reverts in 24 hours clearly were. There is no such rule as 3 reverts in 1 min or 1 hour, and I was reverting the unsourced controversial content you made and those are not "abusive reverts". My warning on you is legitimate and I must remove the false tag you placed on the legitimate warning. Let me summarize your offenses here - restoring and adding unsourced controversial content, leaving 3RR edit warring warning on my talk while i didn't violate the 3RR, harassing me by falsely accusing me of personal attacks like here - the first two can get you blocked if reported, and I can still report them if you linger in this case which I think is over. I don't know what you are up to but your violations were tolerated as you are pretty new here and I thought you deserved more patience from experienced editors judging from your contributions, yet your gaming of rules with complete lack of understanding on them and your combative tone in response to legitimate advices and warnings will only prompt you to troubles as not all editors are the same - many will report violations right away, and in fact this was what I was doing. My friendly words of advice is, please get familiar with policies and always assume good faith on other editors - just like what I did on you despite your violations and thus I didn't report them. Most new editors make some mistakes - be bold, but assume good faith at the same time - if your response to advices or warnings is to play smart or game rules, you will just violate more rules and make other editors perceive discussions with you difficult, thus getting things escalated straight to admins and your account blocked... You may not like so many warnings on your talk - be bold and assume good faith, just ask and I am more than happy to remove all of them as the case is over, if you think it is over. Wikipedia is not a battleground and editors are judged by their contributions, not by the warnings they received, anyone who leaves warnings on you is more than happy to remove them if the case is settled, but only if you also think it is settled too. And lastly, unsourced controversial content is not allowed no matter what, even if it remains undetected for years, that doesn't mean it is allowed here. There are still tons of such controversial information awaiting to be removed. Thanks and I hope you enjoy being part of the community. BigCat82 (talk) 22:58, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
Hi, Sorry, but there was no offense intended whatsoever, so please don't take things personally. As with other editors, I always assume good faith and try to assist where I can. Your contributions are appreciated. I happened to notice that this article is getting bounced around a bit. The issue as related to SMC was different as it was focused on the Swiss University Conference - the home based jurisdiction of the university. As I recall it was removed by an IP user and I reinstated it. This current issue with GBS is with ACBSP, a private US accreditaor. If they are not accredited by them, then there is no need for mention of it. Even if they were simply a "member", this isn't a place for it to be reflected. At present, there doesn't seem to be a universal application on Wiki. Generally with regards accreditation/rankings etc., IMHO it is better to focus on what is, as opposed to what isn't on articles - unless it relates to an official local standing (and it helps clarify matters for the reading public). Audit Guy (talk) 02:55, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Audit Guy, thanks for the feedback. Just a bit lost as to why/when go to talk or edit :) - Right, understand about the SMC conf, saw that in a few private schools, maybe I'll draft a global sentence to add to all the swiss schools about this status. Regards! Jana Janasommer (talk) 21:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Business School Lausanne Page
Hi Janasommer,
I noticed that you have done extensive edits to the Business School Lausanne page, whereby you have deleted big proportions of the content, references, external links, and objective information about the school's programs.
While I understand that the information displayed should be neutral and I welcome collaborative efforts to achieve this, I am unsure of what considerations you have had for removing 85% of the content, despite its neutral character.
I hope we could resolve this edit conflict in a collaborative way here.––Denitsa.marinova (talk) 12:17, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again,
Thank you for your suggestion, will use the article talk page as advised. The content that was removed contained information about each of the school's program (duration, subjects, degree title), mission and vision statement (quoted correctly), and reference articles. Therefore, I would not regard these as unsourced advertising content. I will be using the talk page and editing the page accordingly, and would appreciate if you bear in mind the above explanation before re-editing the article again.Thank you for a collaborative effort here. ––Denitsa.marinova (talk) 07:48, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Denitsa.marinova you may add content as long as it is of encyclopedic value. Please see WP:NOTE. Please also note that the website of the institution is not a reliable source for information (see WP:THIRDPARTY ). Also, since you are affiliated with the institution, please make sure you use the talk page and please do edit in an encyclopedic manner. Regards, Janasommer (talk) 15:20, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Janasommer,
I noticed your latest changes on the Business School Lausanne page and would once again ask that you specify why you keep on removing information which is objective and factual. You did give some useful feedback earlier and following your suggestions, I removed the BSL website as a reference source and replaced all BSL webpage references with references from external websites. I'd like to invite you to discuss any outstanding concerns you may have via email as it doesn't make sense for either one of us to keep on reverting changes on the BSL wikipedia page. If you would like to openly discuss any concerns, please contact us at info@bsl-lausanne.ch. Thank you!––Denitsa.marinova
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.
Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited European School of Management and Technology, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bosch. 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.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Micronesian Pidgin English, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Carolines. 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.
Hello, Janasommer. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
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.
