User talk:ElKevbo/Archive 10

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

University leads

I know this debate at UC Berkeley comes at an unfortunate time during consensus formation at WP:BOOSTER and diluting editor attention to two related but important topics, but perhaps we can move it to WT:UNIGUIDE ? Madcoverboy (talk) 02:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Move what? The UC-Berkeley discussion? I think it belongs in the article's Talk page as it's specific to that institution. I don't feel very strongly about the discussion remaining there, though, as long as it proceeds amicably and doesn't continue to slide into unnecessary hostility. --ElKevbo (talk) 02:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: your comment "I think that we have swung too far in the direction of sanitizing articles when we can't [note] that some institutions like UC-Berkeley or Harvard are widely considered to be among the very best in the world." It's a classic slippery slope problem that we see all the time with rankings; "well UC San Diego has a non-trivial number of Nobel Laureates, is ranked almost as highly, so I think it's also an "internationally leading university"" and then before you know it South Dakota State University (apologies to SDSU alums, it's just my favorite whipping horse) is an internationally recognized university. I'd rather err on the side of caution than trying to negotiate problematic concepts of international recognition and prestige. Madcoverboy (talk) 02:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

If editors of the SDSU article can muster the right kinds and number of references then they should include such a statement. We've gone too far when we're not allowing editors to note that UC-Berkeley is one of the world's top research universities. --ElKevbo (talk) 02:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I admit it's gotten out of hand, but KP Botany's provocations are now completely out of hand even after I extricate myself from discussion: [1] You know my contributions well enough that I'm not one to back down, but this cat needs to cool off too. Madcoverboy (talk) 03:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

If you're going to WP:forum shop for places to discuss me, then you haven't backed out or cooled down.

This post of mine[2] was a comment that you graciously struck out your hostile comment on the article talk page and I returned the consideration by striking out the comment I had made on your talk page. I was so impressed by your striking out your poorly thought comment, that I realized I should follow your lead. Wow! Was I ever mistaken.

If you're done with me, you're done with me in all forums. Otherwise, make it one more forum: AN/I. --KP Botany (talk) 03:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Damn it, that's enough! Both of you, stop talking to one another if you can't both be civil. This is too petty and stupid to continue to piss off one another and eventually end up blocked. Take a deep breath, go outside, or go to sleep and come back later with a cooler head. --ElKevbo (talk) 06:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Ivy plus

Ivy plus did get deleted before: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ivy plus. I doubt that there has been any sudden increase in reliable references out there, and I'm tempted to nominate it for deletion again. Your thoughts? cOrneLlrOckEy (talk) 12:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Flagged Revs

Hi,

I noticed you voted oppose in the flag revs straw pole and would like to ask if you would mind adding User:Promethean/No to your user or talk page to make your position clear to people who visit your page :) - Thanks to Neurolysis for the template   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 07:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

No thank you. --ElKevbo (talk) 11:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Civility

ElKevbo, this statement is borderline uncivil, and dismissive of the opinions of other editors.[3] Please reconsider your attitude here? It seems that you're trying to ram through a change over objections, and your actions are becoming more and more disruptive: Uncivil comments, edit-warring at a guideline page, deleting citations and then edit-warring over them... May I suggest that you take a step back, and consider how your actions are being perceived? Wikipedia is a large collaborative project, and it's important that we treat each other with respect. When there are disputes, we should follow the steps in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, and try especially hard to be respectful of the opinions of others. --Elonka 20:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

No. I feel the same about some of your edits and I'm confident that right now we're both being aggressive but relatively civil. I assure you that you'll know when I'm mad at you and being an asshole. :) --ElKevbo (talk) 20:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Please do not edit war to remove citations. You may wish to change the information from those citations, but the citations themselves should be left alone. If you disagree that a source is reliable, you can bring it up at WP:RSN, but I think you're going to have an uphill battle to argue that The Oregonian is a bad source. --Elonka 20:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Please read the article's Talk page. And please remember that it takes two to edit war. --ElKevbo (talk) 20:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

This comment and edit summary were uncivil.[4] Please try to use a more professional tone in the future, thanks. --Elonka 06:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Examine your own actions and words. --ElKevbo (talk) 06:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, do you like the sound of this better? "Damnit ElKevbo how many times are you going to assume bad faith without any shred of evidence? Get it together and cease your baseless suspicion and accusations." Because those are your words, not mine. I personally wouldn't speak to you that way, because I find it uncivil. But if you think it's okay, I can try to adapt.  :) --Elonka 06:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Aggressiveness and harsh language don't bother me a whit; I'm a big boy. But I find your your continued accusations and complete failure to assume good faith unbecoming an editor much less an administrator. You're welcome to your opinion and if you harbor baseless suspicions then I can't change that but I can and do object to you repeatedly airing them in this venue. Sadly, your silly accusations have done nothing whatsoever to help any of this discussion and have only inflamed the issue and its discussants.

Hold your ground on the issue of changing the article's title and continue to contest the MOS change as is your right. But cut out the bizarre conspiracy accusations unless you're willing to bring it to ArbCom, ANI, or an RFCU; I'm tired of it. --ElKevbo (talk) 06:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk Reply

Hi ElKevbo, I completely understand the need to stop frivolous link spamming, and adding external links that are irrelevant to the article it is being added too. I do not understand, however, why a link to a Continuing Education Center is considered irrelevant to the article concerning Continuing Education. Is it because it is a specific program?

I'm not trying to attack you, I just don't understand.

Thank you

Reggieknopoff (talk) 22:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is because the link is to a specific center. We have very high standards for what to include in encyclopedia articles, including the External links we choose to include. Please remember that External links are not included merely to point readers to examples or to create a directory of links for a particular topic. If there are some extraordinary reasons why we should include that particular link to that particular center, please let me know as I have missed it! Otherwise, it may be worthwhile to post a message in the Talk page of the article so we can see what others think about this.

It may also be helpful to carefully review our policies related to external links and what Wikipedia is not. And please let me know if you have further questions! --ElKevbo (talk) 01:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

ElKevbo

I have to agree with Reggieknopoff, If you bothered to follow the link, you'd see that the link posted is a legitimate, educational website with content and interviews belonging to and controlled by the experts — including Jimmy Wales, WikiPedia's founder. I'd politely ask you to reinstate the links. Thoughtcrawler

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thoughtcrawler (talk • contribs) 19:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Please carefully review our policies related to external links and what Wikipedia is not. And please discuss this link in the relevant article Talk pages. --ElKevbo (talk) 19:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

ELKEVBO,

Not every single sentence needs to supported with a reference. It is common fact that roughly 10% of the incoming class, for Bachelor degrees, at all Ivy League Universities are legacies. Whether a school utilizes legacy admission or not is consistently not referred to in the wikipedia articles under 'Admission' -- rather, only facts that praises the institution as competitive, etc, is generally included. I have a feeling that if support this with one of the four hundred references to legacy admission, you will delete it, as it does not serve to promote the glory of the institution. Sad. I'm an ivy league student myself, despite this I wish the truth to get out. Only in this way can public debate start and changes take place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.163.99 (talk) 01:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... First, if a statement is challenged and it's not common knowledge (and a precise statement about the percentage of legacy students at a given institution is not common knowledge) then you must provide a source. Second, you probably shouldn't be contributing to articles if you're here to "get the truth out" and promote a particular viewpoint.

I can't argue that the articles are probably too positively biased in favor of the institutions; many, many articles have such a bias. But I'm afraid that you must provide sources and write with a neutral point of view even if you are correcting existing biases. --ElKevbo (talk) 01:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I supported my statements with references after your comment. Yet, someone deleted them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.163.99 (talk) 14:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Then work it out on the article's Talk page. That's what Talk pages are for. :) --ElKevbo (talk) 15:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

I don't know how to send a message on here so I'll just put it on your talk page: everything I said in my edit to the Temple University article was 100% sourced. When I said there were a certain number of shootings, I sourced it. When I said there was no escort service, despite other area schools having one, I sourced each stated school. Everything I said was sourced, and I'm sorry if it doesn't sound very nice, but it's neutral. If I tried to paint some sunny picture, then I'd be outright lying. Kind of like the other articles on Temple buildings that sound like a brochure.

FCGE1 (talk) 05:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

You can't engage in original research here. Writing that the institution doesn't have an escort service but institutions x, y, and z have them while citing primary sources for each of those institutions is original research. It's laudable that you want to promote safety for students at Temple but this isn't the place to do it. Editing the article with the intent of shaming the administration into taking action is indeed editing it with a POV and that's something that can't happen here. --ElKevbo (talk) 12:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

LawMarcusB

In addition to the whitewashing, there's also a copyvio that I didn't notice until after I had already reverted. Compare the history section to the History and Mission section of this page. If it happens again and I get to it before you, I'll note the copyvio in my warning, but I thought I'd let you know too. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 14:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate the heads up and your attention to detail! --ElKevbo (talk) 14:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

4icu.org Web Popularity Ranking: evidence of notability

List of some reputable sources mentioning the 4icu.org ranking:

[5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.129.46 (talk) 03:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia links don't establish notability and I'm not quite convinced that the other links do much other than establish that the rankings exist and are included in large listings and press releases. I'm not yet convinced but this is a good start! --ElKevbo (talk) 03:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Could you please explain in more detail what kind of evidence of notability you are referring to? If possible taking the Webometrics or G-Factor rankings as an example to briefly show what type of evidence of notability they provide. Thank you for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.129.46 (talk) 16:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the point you're trying to make ("why are you picking on me when there are other "rankings" in this article lacking sufficient evidence of notability") is a very good one. Unfortunately, I'm afraid that I don't have time right now to do everything necessary to fix this and related articles (but I plan to remove a lot of material since it is unsupported by verifiable evidence).

To answer the question you actually asked: Please provide evidence that others have stated that the ranking system is important, recognized, notable, etc. Merely reproducing the rankings in a press release doesn't seem like very strong evidence of notability (although it's certainly better than nothing!). Peer-reviewed publications (i.e. academic journal articles) are the gold standard so if you can provide any citations of that kind where this ranking system is studied and taken seriously then that would be very helpful. --ElKevbo (talk) 18:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I understand that you have time to remove new content/rankings for insufficient evidence of notability but no time to remove similar content/rankings which may lack analogous evidence of notability.
I also understand that, according to your reply, a peer-reviewed publication (i.e. academic journal articles) would help assessing the seriousness of the 4icu.org ranking and therefore its notability. I could not find any reference in the Wikipedia Notability guidelines to the need of academic level and/or peer-reviewed sources for establishing the notability of a topic. Moreover, those guidelines apply to the inclusion of an entire topic/article in Wikipedia and mention, I quote, "These notability guidelines only pertain to the encyclopaedic suitability of topics for articles but do not directly limit the content of articles." and "The notability guidelines determine whether a topic is notable enough to be a separate article in Wikipedia. Notability, in the sense used to determine article inclusion, does not directly affect article content."
Moreover, is an academic/peer-reviewed source needed for each of the over 2,000,000 Wikipedia articles/topics and their internal content in order to establish their notability? I do not think so.

In regard to the evidence of notability I provided, please note that they are not merely and only press releases and/or collection of links. In particular, following the previous numbered list:

1) University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign - Education and Social Science Library
Debuted in 1997, The College and University Rankings Web page is maintained by librarians at the Education and Social Science Library, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. It contains selected rankings and provides "caution & controversy" information related to some academic university rankings. I am confident those librarians have enough knowledge and experience to select and assess whether a ranking is worth mentioning before including it in their education resource.

2) Indiana University IU News Room
This is indeed a press release but it is produced by a large and long established US University. The Indiana University communication office would think twice before releasing a news that may, if proved wrong or misleading, undermine their own reputation or be counterproductive.

5) IOL Diario
Article published in a Portuguese newspaper about the position of the Coimbra University (founded in 1290) in the 4icu.org ranking. The article is in Portuguese where the 4icu.org directory is in English only.

6) Tribuna do Norte
Article published in a Brazilian regional newspaper about the position of the UEL University in the 4icu.org ranking. This is probably based on a press news that UEL has autonomously decided to release after evaluating their ranking in the 4icu.org directory.

8) Wikipedia - Shahjalal University of Science and Technology
This is a Wikipedia article on the Bangladeshi Shahjalal University of Science and Technology edited by Wikipedia contributors that supposedly should follow the same notability guidelines and be able to appraise whether the 4icu.org ranking is relevant and trustworthy.

9) Wikipedia - Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology
Same as above

(10) Wikipedia - Keio University
Same as above but for the Japanese Keio University established in 1858

(11) Wikipedia - Education in Tokyo
Rankings overview for higher education organisations in Tokyo mentioning the 4icu.org ranking

(12) Wikipedia - Clasificación académica de universidades de Colombia
Article in Spanish about rankings of higher education organisations in Colombia mentioning the 4icu.org ranking

(13) Wikipedia - Ranking de universidades españolas
Article in Spanish about rankings of higher education organisations in Spain mentioning, once again, the 4icu.org ranking

If several Wikipedia contributors from different countries and in different languages have previously assessed the validity and notability of the 4icu.org ranking in their education related articles I do not see why this should not be considered as an additional and independent source of notability.

I perfectly understand that your editing job is volunteer, it has probably limited time resources and it is primarily intended to preserve the integrity, quality and scope of the Wikipedia encyclopaedia, however, I do think that the reference to the 4icu.org rankings, established since 2005, is a valuable and notable resource for this specific Wikipedia article and does follow the Wikipedia guidelines.

Should you be interested in receiving more details about the methodology adopted by the 4icu.org web ranking as a way to better assess its seriousness and notability, I would be happy to provide them to you.

Copyright Policy

You have violated standard practice for Wikipedia with your constant reverts to the University of South Florida article. Your goal of protecting against copyright violations is laudable, but please follow the proper procedure. I am not sure why there has been no communication on your part, but I assume it was a simple mistake.

Please remember to follow the guidelines set forth at WP:SPCP, which include "assume good faith" and "avoid copyright paranoia". Further, the Wikipedia copyright violation policy states "[i]f you suspect a copyright violation, you should at least bring up the issue on that page's discussion page. Others can then examine the situation and take action if needed. The most helpful piece of information you can provide is a URL or other reference to what you believe may be the source of the text." You have not done this. Please see WP:COPYVIO for a refresher if needed.

The page you have reverted to numerous times is similar content, just outdated, incorrect, and unsourced. The information in question likely qualifies as acceptable not only because the material was NOT produced by the linked website, but also under fair use rationale. If you believe there is a problem, please follow Wikipedia policy and discuss the questionable material on the talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cfirst (talk • contribs) 20:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Reproducing the material is unquestionably a violation of copyright; unless there is some extraordinary evidence of which I am unaware, there is simply nothing here to discuss. --ElKevbo (talk) 00:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I am unclear why you refuse to discuss this matter, in accordance with Wikipedia policy, on the talk page of the article in question. I have already clearly stated several reasons why I believe this material is not a copyright violation. I believe civil discussion could solve this problem, and would appreciate it if you would follow protocol rather than shutting out discussion and simply engaging in edit-warring.Cfirst (talk) 01:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome to start a discussion on the article's Talk page if you'd like to do so. Unless you have some evidence to present or an argument I don't see a need to bother. It's nothing personal; I'm just not particularly enamored with needless bureaucracy. --ElKevbo (talk) 01:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Columbia

This material was on the page for several years. In a much longer section. Someone recently took it down. Obviously it is political, but it is real and hardly minor. I am putting it back up with footnotes. Please look at the history of the article. This was a political sanitization of material of consequence and long-standing.Historicist (talk) 02:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but you don't get to add (or restore) "controversies" to an article without good sources. The only real source referenced in that chunk of text literally doesn't even mention Columbia. And the other "source" referenced isn't actually source but someone's name with a date.

I have no objections to well-sourced material being added or restored to that article but that material doesn't fit the bill and meet our standards. --ElKevbo (talk) 02:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll put up more sources tomorrow. There were myriad. However, you should aways check the history before deciding that a restoration is vandalism. Especially in an article and university you are unfamiliar with.Historicist (talk) 02:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I never said it was vandalism and your assumptions about my level of knowledge about this institution are ridiculous and unfounded. The history of the article and the institution are irrelevant if the material you want to add or restore is not well-supported by reliable sources; this is a core principle of Wikipedia and it's not negotiable. --ElKevbo (talk) 04:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I apologize if I was and sounded annoyed. It's just that so much well-sourced, significant information is removed from pages for political reasons. and it is easy to perceive political things as, well, merely political posturing and trivial. This was not. The 2005 Ad Hoc investigating committee was a pretty major deal, covered by the national press, it went on for months, the accusations of a cover-up were substantive, it has been a section since 2005 and really merits a continuing brief mention on the page.Historicist (talk) 16:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I'm not terribly happy with the state of that article myself as it seems like some of the less-than-positive aspects of the institution's history are not given the proper weight and level of detail. The historical anti-Semitic nature of some of the institution's actions are very well-known but not well represented in the article. I'm not as familiar with recent events and am leery of giving any recent events undue weight. I have simply assumed that the lack of some historical information was due to the well-known bias of Wikipedia towards more recent events and history but it's certainly possible that there is something more devious going on. I'll poke around more later when I have more time. --ElKevbo (talk) 20:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Lawrence Summers

User:Binarybits continues to revert inappropriate material.Historicist (talk) 16:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I dropped a note at WP:BLPN. --ElKevbo (talk) 20:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Keep up the good work!

ElKevbo, I have watched your edits over time and you have my respect and admiration as an exceptionally balanced and well intentioned editor. Were we local I'd be pleased to buy you supper and the libation of your choice. Cheers! Sirberus (talk) 17:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I appreciate the kind words. --ElKevbo (talk) 21:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

University of Tennessee

Hi. Do you know any sources for your contributions to the article University of Tennessee? Some articles in the city paper or on a major news website or publication? And I'm sorry about the huge reversion...I think I reverted a little more than I meant to. But if you could get a source on a few of those statements, that would be great. Thanks! ~SunDragon34 (talk) 07:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Oops! Sorry—that comment was meant for Djorvix. I was on his talk page on Huggle, but it was your revision. Sorry about any confusion. ~SunDragon34 (talk) 07:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Stop deleting relevant information. I'm updating the page, not destroying it. The rankings information that you keep redoing are the latest listings for the University.

Hi, I noticed you're a pretty prolific editor... could you please help me upload some pictures for the UT article? It needs photos of campus icons, like the Torchbearer statue and Neyland stadium. My account should be autoconfirmed by now, but after five days it is not and I can't really find out why, so any help you could offer would be great. If you consent, I'll give you the links to the pics online. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benermerut (talk • contribs) 00:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Let me know how I can help! --ElKevbo (talk) 02:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Here you go:

http://graphics.fansonly.com/photos/schools/tenn/galleries/04-football-FLORIDA/running_6988-lg.jpg http://www.electroniccampus.org/school_logos/CollegeforTN/University_of_Tennessee__Knoxville/University_of_Tennessee__Knoxville1.jpg http://bus.utk.edu/undergrad/advising/Images/torchbearer.jpg http://www.utk.edu/tntoday/images/baker-center-exterior-225.jpg http://www.collegefortn.org/school_logos/CollegeforTN/University_of_Tennessee__Knoxville/University_of_Tennessee__Knoxville4.jpg http://www.collegefortn.org/school_logos/CollegeforTN/University_of_Tennessee__Knoxville/University_of_Tennessee__Knoxville3.jpg

Thanks, buddy. That helps a lot. -- Benermerut —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.36.232.170 (talk) 22:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Those appear to be copyrighted so they're not very useful at all here in Wikipedia. Do you happen to have any photos you've taken yourself that you'd like to release under a GFDL-compatible license? Or any photos that have already been released under such a license? --ElKevbo (talk) 15:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I can make some. I'll put them on photobucket and send you the link. Thank you very much. Benermerut —Preceding undated comment added 01:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC).

I don't have the time to do so myself but it might be worth taking a look at the CC-licensed material in Flickr (you can specifically search for CC-licensed material using their search engine). --ElKevbo (talk) 01:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

For-pay references In ARWU

I have two problems with the reference you reinstated:

1) The citation does not add anything to the article. it merely says that the ARWU is cited by the reference. There was already one reference given to support the assertion that the ARWU is cited by other publications. One citation is sufficient.

2) Because the citation does not add anything, I question the propriety of turning Wikipedia into an advertising platform for for-pay sites.

Note, I'm not questioning the legitimacy of the Nature magazine here. I'd just like to see citation add more to articles than links to for-pay sites. As it stands, it looks to me like a way to get around WP:NOT. Vantelimus (talk) 13:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

If the reference doesn't add anything to the article then by all means remove it. I merely objected to removing the reference on the grounds that it isn't free. --ElKevbo (talk) 16:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Consensus test on university topics

You previously commented on the RFC on the notability of residences at colleges and universities. A consensus test has been posted to evaluate what, if any consensus, has been reached on the issue. Please go and comment at: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities#Consensus test. Madcoverboy (talk) 18:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Queen's

Queen's: and yet everything written (now deleted by you) was true and not merely pov. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyril2006 (talk • contribs) 04:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Prove it (i.e. provide references). --ElKevbo (talk) 13:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

College

I will not take the 'College' discussion to talk. I'll leave it there. Wikipedia is based on a failed theory; garbage, even if offensive garbage, if cited, cannot be removed. All that a discussion will achieve is to is get this login banned. Why bother?

So, you can live with this new article paragraph, and see a thousand years of European university history disappear into leftist pro-Islamic revisionism.

And I suspect there's not a little justice in the matter, since I suspect you're part of the problem of why this is happening.

Let ignorance prevail.Zog the Marvelous (talk) 19:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

If you have better or different sources, cite them. Otherwise, please leave your political screeds off my Talk page. --ElKevbo (talk) 00:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

CiaoZog the Marvelous (talk) 00:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

USF

There appears to be an influx of new users editing University of San Francisco-related pages. If it's a class project, it was not announced on WP:SUP. I'd appreciate it if you could keep your anti-vandal eagle eyes on the article over the next few days to see what develops. Madcoverboy (talk) 22:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Will do. --ElKevbo (talk) 23:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Yale Sustainability

I have nominated Yale Sustainability, an article that you have been involved with, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yale Sustainability. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Toddst1 (talk) 15:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

University of Oklahoma GAR

University of Oklahoma has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Articles are typically reviewed for one week. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

FAU

I have left a comment at FAU's talk expressing my concern about COI editing and have likewise warned Yezn0r about his edit-warring behavior. Thanks for the heads up. Madcoverboy (talk) 18:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Grove City College

Thank you for helping improve the article Grove City College; however, with this edit you removed external links that another editor and I determined should remain. Would you mind stating the reasons why you removed those links on Talk:Grove City College in the section where we discussed it? I would appreciate it. ~EdGl ★ 15:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for dropping me a line! --ElKevbo (talk) 16:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your opinions. I replied to your post on that talk page so I'm ready for more of your input :) ~EdGl ★ 17:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Please help

Kevbo, could I have your input at Talk:MidAmerica Nazarene University? I realise that I'm not super-friendly, and perhaps that's going to burn me, but I've been civil as far as I can tell and I'm still running into WP:V issues with an editor that might be causing more WP:CIVIL issues the more I refer to guidelines. I'd love to know if I'm wrong but I think I've gone about things the right way, if not, as I said, a super-friendly way.... More at User talk:Moonraker0022.... King of the Arverni (talk) 19:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I've left my opinion and I applaud your willingness to seek out a neutral third party!

But you may have gone a bit off track when you started with the "student poop" example... :) --ElKevbo (talk) 20:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; I'd exhausted constant references to guidelines and thought that the only way I could reason was to show that I wasn't some kook and that the guidelines don't exist based on my whim. I don't know if you read all of the talk page, but I spent way too much time debunking logical fallacies and ideas that defied WP:VERIFY. What really stymied me was a repeated attempt to tell me that information on Wikipedia didn't need sources. Anyway, I've just replied to your comment.

I just wanted to let you know that the encyclopedia isn't by students but for students (makes sense to me, I guess, considering a school like MNU wouldn't mean much to the average population), and that I had considered Encyclopedia Britannica more "third-party" and "independent" than the school's own website. What was even more odd than the VERIFY issues was that the editor was adamant about the college being farther from Kansas City. While I didn't want to assume any bad faith and certainly don't recall making any WP:COI accusations, I've found that the editor has admitted attending a competing school. The editor tried guessing what my association was with such articles -- so I didn't even take too kindly to asking if I'd been to KC before, either; I'm certainly not looking forward to being outed. I was also just plain worried about the long track record of that editor adding PR-style information (not sure how that fits in with the potential COI, though), not using sources, and using misleading edit summaries during our dispute. The editor clearly took umbrage when I said that things didn't meet the WP:MOS or VERIFY and seemed to consider edits and/or articles his/her WP:OWN to some extent.

The distance issue is just the latest saga, and was getting close to incivility, IMHO. I especially value your opinion, and thought it was time to bring in a third party. I know I'm a "stickler for the rules" but I don't see the point of having the guidelines unless it's to establish WP:NPOV and eliminate COI. The poop/pee example was my (failed, apparently) attempt to innocuously point out that when information cites a source and an editor just changes the information that's verified by that source, it isn't exactly kosher, haha. I agree that it's silly. Whenever I run into issues that are solved with VERIFY, I'm just happy to agree with other editors; I don't flip out and start rambling like a mad person.... Thanks again. Any other advice? Is any of what I'm saying here new, and does it make sense? King of the Arverni (talk) 21:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I finally responded at Talk:MidAmerica Nazarene University#Distance from Kansas City. I also forgot to point out (as I added there, as well) that the 1-mile difference wasn't between the sources. The sources differed by 5 miles, while the editor used a source that said 19 and adjusted the content to say 20 for both sources multiple times. King of the Arverni (talk) 17:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I caught that. I was completely ignoring the Google map as a source and only referring to the Britannica and institutional website sources. --ElKevbo (talk) 17:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry that they're so belated, but I wanted to offer you my thanks for your help over at MidAmerica Nazarene University. I found your input helpful and refreshing. King of the Arverni (talk) 21:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

You're very welcome! --ElKevbo (talk) 22:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Executive Education External Links

sorry, but there is no conflict of interest between the user name and the external link. "ExecEd" is how most people commonly refer to executive education. i was looking for an execed program in finance and that site was the only one i found that listed the upcoming programs from all the top schools. it's really unique. hope this helps. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by ExecEdStudent (talk • contribs) 19:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok. It might be best to post a similar message in the Talk page of the article so that others can read your message and we can see what they think, too. Thanks for your response! --ElKevbo (talk) 19:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

thanks ElKevbo. unfortunately, there is no talk page associated with the article and i'm not sure it's worth staring one just for this (minor) issue. what do you think of the other external link? seems like switching it to the financial times executive education page - http://www.ft.com/businesseducation/executiveeducation2009 - would be a better choice. they have a global interactive list of execed programs and the ft is one of the most prestigious business publications in the world —Preceding unsigned comment added by ExecEdStudent (talk • contribs) 21:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! --ElKevbo (talk) 21:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

thanks again for your help. i added the link to the financial times and restored the link to the list of upcoming execed programs. those two will certainly add to the value of the article. hope you like the changes —Preceding unsigned comment added by ExecEdStudent (talk • contribs) 20:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi I am new to Wikipedia editing but I thought the execedprograms.com link was useful because its the only site with a collection of these programs, in comparison to searching for these programs at each school 50+ times for their MBA and ExecEd programs. Thanks. Lightlumina (talk) 22:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I strongly recommend posting this to the Talk page of the article so you can get broader input from other editors. --ElKevbo (talk) 23:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Gustavus Adolphus College

Moved from my user page.

All our academic deans resigned upon his appointment. He bankrupted the last college he was president of. Do you even go here? What gives you the perspective to judge anything? GTFO —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.236.250.182 (talk • contribs) 20:08, May 23, 2009

It may be regrettable and unfortunate but it's very common for senior executives to "resign" when a new president takes charge of an institution as it gives him or her the opportunity to bring in his or her own people. Even if this situation is different it certainly doesn't belong in the "Disasters" section of the article. --ElKevbo (talk) 02:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Challenger

Regarding this edit to Space Shuttle Challenger disaster, I'm not saying I think the info should necessarily be restored to the article, but it's not usually considered proper to remove something because the link(s) that supported it are no longer available on the web. Even so, we don't necessarily have to WP:AGF about the info; it could be supported by this online link, for example. Offline sources include "Elizabeth Gosch. "Fed: Bundaberg historic house home to Challenger memorabilia." AAP General News . Newspaper Source Plus, EBSCOhost (accessed May 25, 2009)." and "David Dale. 2001. "SIGN POSTS." Sydney Morning Herald, The : 24. Newspaper Source Plus, EBSCOhost (accessed May 25, 2009)." There aren't a lot of sources, and again, I'm not sure the info even ought to be there, but it does appear it could be cited from reliable sources if it were desirable to have it in the article.  Frank  |  talk  16:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

If you have reliable sources, please include them; the sources that were present were problematic. I think the bar should be pretty high for FAs. --ElKevbo (talk) 17:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I provided three reliable sources above. Your edit summary seemed to indicate it was removed solely for lack of access to sources. I've solved that problem; whether or not the info improves the article is another question.  Frank  |  talk  17:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I leave that judgment to those with knowledge of the subject and a vested interest in the article as I am neither. --ElKevbo (talk) 17:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Very well; I've parked the info on the talk page of the article in case someone shows up with some interest in the matter.  Frank  |  talk  17:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks good, Frank. Thanks! --ElKevbo (talk) 18:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't do anyrthing wrong

Hello ElKevbo. I got a message from you saying I was vandalizing. I have not been vandalizing and I don't know why you are acusing me. Please reply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GatorSlayerFSU (talk • contribs) 20:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Among other things, you moved FSU ahead of all other Florida institutions on a list that was otherwise in alphabetical order. Please stop making edits that obviously favor and promote FSU above other institutions. --ElKevbo (talk) 00:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

ElKevbo , I was moving the cities in order , It got undone by the time I was gonna edit the other. I was putting FAMU and FSU together because the are both in Tallahassee. I was putting cities in order. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GatorSlayerFSU (talk • contribs) 02:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Please accept my apologies. --ElKevbo (talk) 03:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Requested ref

Hello. Can you ofer me a reference regarding this claim? While I don't think I'm the person who added it (though I could be mistaken), what I've been taught at various NCO schools supports the statement you removed. Even if you can't, I suppose that it is better to leave it removed, since it is unreferenced, but I'd like to know if some of my academic instruction has been incorrect. bahamut0013^words_deeds 08:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Here you go! It's buried in there as the use of the cutlass is rather antiquated and limited to Navy boot camp but it's there. There's also a Chief's sword but I've only seen it awarded in ceremonies and never actually worn so I think it's either outdated or unofficial (despite being sold in uniform shops on base). --ElKevbo (talk) 13:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Doc

Hey, I was always under the impression that it's best to use "So-and-so president &c." instead of "Dr. So-and-so president &c." in the university infobox per MOS, but I can't seem to find any reference to that. Am I just on crack, or is there actually a legitimate source for that? I must've just picked it up after seeing someone remove the "Dr." and use the MOS as a reason long ago, but I'm not sure now. King of the Arverni (talk) 15:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I think there is something somewhere about our use of honorifics but I don't recall where that is and if there is anything specific to infoboxes in general or this specific infobox. I don't get too worried about that kind of stuff although if I were in charge (hah!) I would like to see the degree following the person's name as that is a bit more informative than either their name or just "Dr." (does that mean EdD, PhD, MD, or what?). But leaving it out altogether is fine by me and probably in line with standard practice. --ElKevbo (talk) 17:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:CREDENTIAL? King of the Arverni (talk) 19:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that seems to be it. I don't quite agree with it but that appears to be the policy/guideline/whatever. --ElKevbo (talk) 20:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Formal Mediation for Sports Logos

As a contributor to Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/RFC_on_use_of_sports_team_logos, you have been included in a request for formal mediation regarding the subject at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Use of Sports Logos. With your input and agreement to work through mediation, it is hoped we can achieve a lasting solution. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

For the tip about the {{seealso}} template tool! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sammy Houston (talk • contribs) 09:14, June 1, 2009

You're welcome. --ElKevbo (talk) 14:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

George W. Bush GA Sweeps: On Hold

I have reviewed George W. Bush for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. Since you are a main contributor of the article (determined based on this tool), I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 21:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

St. John's University (New York)

A content dispute at St. John's University (New York) between an IP editor and a registered editor with a potential conflict of interest has gotten a bit out of hand and devolved into personal attacks, outing, and general nastiness. A 24-hour page protection has been imposed, but I'm requesting that other editors intervene to develop a consensus on the dispute while the protection is in place. Madcoverboy (talk) 19:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Rosenberg at FIU

Not that it really matters, but what's your deal with keeping Rosenberg off the list as the fifth FIU president? His tenure may not start until August 3, 2009, but that doesn't make him any less the fifth president. It's not as if his name is being placed in the template box under current president. --Comayagua99 (talk) 18:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

He's not president until...he's actually president. :) --ElKevbo (talk) 06:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

IP Vandalism on BC Article

Hi. If you're an admin (you put a block warning on 71.232.129.16's talk page), perhaps it's time to act on this. The vandal (also using 71.232.194.195) is putting that tedious thing about the "vast expanses of concrete" in the article again... Thanks. Seduisant (talk) 14:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any recent activity by either of those IPs or anything in the BC article. Am I missing something? --ElKevbo (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe this isn't considered "recent", but it's this week:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boston_College&diff=prev&oldid=296436861

Seduisant (talk) 20:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Generally editors are only blocked if they're actively editing disruptively so we'll need to wait to see if this happens again and we can catch him or her "in the act." --ElKevbo (talk) 23:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

It's begun again... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:71.232.129.16)

George Mason University

Hi, please keep in mind that reverting a Wikipedia page more than three times in a 24-hour period would be a violation of the three revert rule (WP:3RR) and would result in a block. Also, accusing another editor of vandalism when you disagree with the editor's edits is generally considered uncivil. I suggest you use the talkpage to explain your views. 173.66.36.76 (talk) 16:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to butt-in, but there are exceptions to 3RR, such as in cases of vandalism. --King of the Arverni (talk) 16:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Baruch College School of Public Affairs

Hi Elkevbo: Please let me know why the additions to the Baruch College wiki were deleted. I understand we can't link to external in the body but I'm not sure why the content was deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.210.51.94 (talk) 15:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The material was almost entirely copied from the Baruch website. That website may be a good source of information but we have to adapt it to our own words and layout; simply changing a few words and omitting a few sentences is not sufficient. --ElKevbo (talk) 17:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Who are you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.194.250.71 (talk) 15:10, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Just another Wikipedia editor... :) --ElKevbo (talk) 00:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

University of Florida: Most Prestigious in State

ElKevbo----Thank you for your recent edit and comments regarding the statement that the University of Florida "is the most academically prestigious in the state." That statement, my friend, is objective fact. Whether it is adequately supported by the footnote referencing the latest US News & World Report national university rankings is questionable. So, in answer to your comment, I will re-write the footnote to include references to multiple sources and rankings (many of which are already included in the text of other sections within the article).

I write citations and footnotes for a living, and I can assure you that the statement is objectively true. Here's a question in response: Among Central Florida, Embry-Riddle, Florida, Florida A&M, Florida Atlantic, Florida Gulf Coast, Florida International, Florida Southern, Florida State, Miami, North Florida, Rollins, South Florida, Stetson, West Florida, which school is the most academically prestigious? It's an easy answer . . . every ranking service has Florida ranked ahead of the rest as an undergraduate college, and for virtually every graduate program. If you believe it is required, I will list citations to every undergraduate and graduate school ranking available. I would prefer not to do so, but merely include 3 or 4 representative citations in a "See, e.g." footnote. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

ElKevbo, I hope the revised footnote satisfies your discerning use of academic sources. Ironically, the empirical rankings, usually based on volume of published research and similar research-related criteria, all rate Florida higher than US News does. Florida's US News undergrad and grad school rankings suffer from the lower starting salaries typical of the state. It's also one of the reasons that secondary California schools rank higher than they objectively should on US News' list----because staring salaries are higher in California based on the regional cost of living. Many astute observers have complained for years that US News needs to adjust estimated starting salaries for regional cost of living differentials. The editors are aware of the problem and continue to ignore it. Given present economic conditions and declining salaries, I suspect the secondary U Cal schools will see their US News rankings take a hit the next 2 years. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Heads up

Thought you should know about this. A rather understandable assumption, I suppose, considering the correlation between this edit and this one. WP:SOCK seems pretty clear to me but I'm not sure if WP:RFCU is necessary, and I don't know the procedure for either. Fun times. :-) --King of the Arverni (talk) 00:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

No worries, mate. I appreciate the heads up!

In addition, I would consider not participating in the mediation case if I were you. It seems like a waste of your time and it would be much better to let the discussion play out in the article's Talk page than to waste a mediator's time and energy. --ElKevbo (talk) 05:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Cranbrook Schools

Would you be so nice and have a look on the article Cranbrook Schools? I constantly try to make this article better but a user called John DC constantly tries to change into an older version. I would appreciate your opinion on that! Thanks in advance!--92.227.212.128 (talk) 09:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that until you or other editors begin adding references to the article it's going to remain a mess. Based on a quick glance, it appears that JohnInDC is doing good work. Sorry! --ElKevbo (talk) 14:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I'll get to work on sourcing it (after I get home from vacation and back in front of a useable machine). Fortunately despite the lack of sourcing the facts of the article are, by and large, not the subject of any dispute and collecting sources should be easy.

Also FWIW I notice you've warned the IP editor against edit warring. What you'll find is that this editor's IP address changes with virtually every edit, so it's unlikely they'll ever see it. Would semi-protection be appropriate if this continues? JohnInDC (talk) 15:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

If they continue edit warring then I think that semi-protection would be most appropriate if we can't block this editor. I see that he or she is either changed addresses or enlisting others and I just wanted to make sure that he or she had been formally warned once or twice. --ElKevbo (talk) 15:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Here are my sources: www.farang.de/Archiv/AUSGABEN/2007_07.html Ambassador Prompoj

schools.cranbrook.edu/podium/default.aspx?t=108139 Pulitzer Prize winner Taro Yamasaki

www.petermaass.com/core.cfm?p=1&mag=129&magtype=1 Gabriel Nguema Lima

--92.227.212.128 (talk) 16:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Why did you undo my older version? Everything was referenced! --92.227.212.128 (talk) 16:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I would like to add Kathryn Iacocca, daughter of Lee Iacocca and President of Iacocca foundation, (http://www.nytimes.com/1986/04/20/style/kathryn-iacocca-to-marry-in-june.html) and Eric Nederlander, a Broadway producer, (http://www.celebrityprepschools.com/) on the list. What do you think about that?--92.227.212.128 (talk) 16:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)--78.52.219.98 (talk) 17:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks okay to me. It would probably be better to ask these kinds of questions on the Talk page of the article so that everyone that is interested in the article can chime in. --ElKevbo (talk) 18:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

It is not okay with me! Please see the Talk page, where the IP user asked this same question and met with my objection, and request for others' input. JohnInDC (talk) 18:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Help with a navbox

Hi Kevbo. I just made a navbox for Washington & Jefferson College – Template:W&J, but I can't figure out how to get the "View/Discuss/Edit" or "[Hide]" tools at the top of it to match the school colors and make them red. I know you're a heavy contributor to academia articles, do you think you could help? Thanks. Jrcla2 ^talk 20:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

If understand your request correctly, I think you just had an extra hash mark specifying the color. I removed it. If that didn't fix it, please specify exactly what is still wrong and I'll continue poking at it! --ElKevbo (talk) 21:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Perfect. I didn't see the extra hash mark. Making templates is kinda like writing - you can only see errors in your own work up to a point. Beyond the basics, an extra set of eyes is needed. You fixed my problem, much obliged. Jrcla2 ^talk 21:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

FAs

Hey, is there a guideline somewhere that says you can't tag FAs? I've had a fairly ridiculous and unenlightening spat with a couple of editors who say you can't, but who haven't been able to communicate why/how despite my repeated requests. --inquietudeofcharacter (talk) 23:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I know of no such prohibition and I would oppose it if I found one. Being a FA doesn't mean that an article is perfect. Some are older and were made FAs when our standards were much lower. And even the best articles can deteriorate over time if they're not well maintained and carefully watched. --ElKevbo (talk) 00:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Really? So what's your take on Talk:Ohio Wesleyan University#Tags? That is, other than the fact that I can be a huge pain in the ass, which I'm sure you knew anyway. It's nothing of any great importance or anything. --inquietudeofcharacter (talk) 01:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry; I didn't want to waste your time with a non-existent content dispute; I had become concerned about the FA-tagging issue. --inquietudeofcharacter (talk) 03:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

CCU

Thanks for the help over at Colorado Christian University. Looks like the primary contributor lately is the school's web development office, so I added a couple of tags to encourage some NPOV input and explained the tagging on the talk page. I don't mine a little COI, I suppose, as long as the editor welcomes others' input, as well, to make sure it's all NPOV. --inquietudeofcharacter (talk) 18:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Summaries

I got your message earlier. I am awful at writing good summaries for notables in main articles. Jrcla2 ^talk 03:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

DWC

I've been bugging you a lot lately; sorry about that. There might be some more issues at Daniel Webster College with an IP editor based in Pepperell, Massachusetts, which borders Nashua, New Hampshire. Then again, maybe I'm the problem. I've left a couple of notes on the talk page, the IP editor hasn't addressed anything there so far, and I'd love your input. I'm sorry again for the confusion I caused you over at OWU, but perhaps you can offer some of that sage advice over at DWC instead. Let me know. --inquietudeofcharacter (talk) 02:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

DWC is owned by a for-profit chain now; I doubt the Carnegie Foundation updates things that quickly. Do you know how often the update things? --inquietudeofcharacter (talk) 13:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Carnegie doesn't update very often at all. I don't know how often Ed updates (IPEDS data is collected thrice yearly but I don't know how quickly those data make it to College Navigator). If you can cite some sources proving that the institution is now for-profit, please update the article and cite those sources. --ElKevbo (talk) 13:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure, the news articles are cited all over the DWC Wikipedia article (in the history and under "Organization"): [19], [20], [21], [22], [23]. It seems the IP editor is worried that these news articles portray the college in a bad light. I also just emailed someone at the Carnegie Foundation to find out more. --inquietudeofcharacter (talk) 13:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I re-added the for-profit bit and found another source (though I'm not sure if it's a "reliable" one per se -- let me know what you think). --inquietudeofcharacter (talk) 14:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm looking around for sources, too, and so far they're a bit shakey since I am not 100% willing to concede that the mere purchase of the institution by a for-profit company necessarily means that the institution is now for-profit. It's a sure bet and there are very clear indications in many articles but I'd sure like a source that explicitly states the institution's tax status. Too bad its "Fact Book" sucks so badly. :( --ElKevbo (talk) 14:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Found one. This article probably has some other useful info if you'd like to mine it for other up-to-date facts. --ElKevbo (talk) 14:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Stupid me. I'd actually read that one recently and completely forgot about its existence. Yeah, the layoffs are in the article, as is replacing the president. I initially referred to the layoffs as a media controversy (the Telegraph made sure to point out inconsistencies &c.) but the IP editor took issue with that. Some of the arguments are weak IMHO but I'm fine with leaving it at "23 layoffs" (I also said "several" but that seems to be a confusing word, too). Thanks for the research. I always appreciate what you bring to the table. --inquietudeofcharacter (talk) 14:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities/Article guidelines#Move

What are your thoughts? --inquietudeofcharacter (talk) 21:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Canadian Ivy League

An article that you have been involved in editing, Canadian Ivy League, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canadian Ivy League. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Labattblueboy (talk) 20:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of material in Social network service article

Hello. In the Social network service article, you deleted, without discussion, a book I put in as reading, namely a very recent and topical book called:

• Alemán, Ana M. Martínez; Wartman, Katherine Lynk, "Online social networking on campus: understanding what matters in student culture", Routledge, 1 edition (November 24, 2008). ISBN 041599019X

Had you read this book? I have it in my hands and have read it. You wrote in your deletion comment "(nah; it's too limited in scope and doesn't contribute much that is original)".

I would tend to disagree. So, I'm up for re-inserting it but with discussion if necessary.

-- Bob Wikiklrsc (talk) 22:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I have read it. Much of it is a rehash of what we already knew. I think that the authors could have done a better job linking in college culture but they didn't do that for some reason. It's not bad qualitative work but it doesn't add a whole lot to the body of knowledge. Instead of playing to their strengths - student development, college culture, etc. - the authors embarrass themselves by covering old ground and getting technical information wrong. It's a shame because higher ed scholars can make some really unique contributions but instead many of us are, like these authors, merely covering ground already covered by scholars in other fields.

There are much better resources out there and our readers should be directed to them, not this second-rate work. --ElKevbo (talk) 22:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, thanks for your reply. The references and scholarly citations in the book are many and to good sources. Routledge, a well-respected academic house, published it so one would assume it wouldn't be so inferior ostensibly. I see where you're coming from, but am unsure such a harsh criticism of the book is in order. The author, Dr. Ana M. Martínez Alemán, is department chair and Associate Professor of Educational Administration and Higher Education in the Lynch School of Education at Boston College which is significant. What to do now? Thanks. -- Bob. Wikiklrsc (talk) 23:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I do think a harsh criticism is in order as I expect better from my peers. The authors stepped a little bit too far out of their element in this book. That's my opinion, of course, but a well-informed one. --ElKevbo (talk) 23:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I understand where you're coming from although we have somewhat differing opinions and takes on the book. I still think the book has some general merit rather than a ground-breaking erudite treatise. If nothing else, it serves as a kind of general survey of the topic which is useful and reachable by the proverbial Everyman. Thanks for your clarifications. Best wishes. -- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 18:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I was brought to this discussion by a note left on my user talk page. I looked at the edit removing the book from the "Further reading" section, and was looking at it like, why did they remove this? when I saw it. I have not read the book, but considering it's a section on further reading, why not keep it around? I see those types of sections as serving two purposes. One, and the official purpose, is to direct readers of the article to more information should they wish to delve more deeply into the topic by listing published sources. Secondly, however, as a list of reliable sources that are not referenced to specific passages, it's also a resource list for editors for potential additional citations. And that's why it's worth keeping around, really. One can never have too many reliable sources. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

We do need to employ editorial discretion in deciding what materials to include even in "Further reading" sections lest they become too broad and collection points for vanity additions. I contend that this book simply doesn't add much to the body of knowledge. It's not a bad book but one can learn the same material by relying on materials by scholars such as Ellison, Stutzman, boyd, and the Pew Internet & American Life Project who more effectively make more original contributions.

If there is a significant body of editors who insist that this book remains then I'm certainly happy to compromise. But I would hope that we can base our discussion on the substantive merits of the book itself and how it would help readers. --ElKevbo (talk) 23:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your clarification. I think the book still has merit in "Further Reading". Best wishes. -- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 18:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Dickinson College

ElKevbo,

You are an incompetent jack ass. Get your facts correct before you remove the edits of other people.

John Dickinson was not the Governor of Pennsylvania, he was the President of Pennsylvania. At that time in our nation's history, we were not as allied with the other colonies as we are today. Virginia was viewed as a military and economic ally, not as a fellow province or state. Read a history book before you police the edits of others. Further, John Dickinson was a wealthy man and the largest slave owner nearly everyplace that he went. He did indeed free his slaves, just as he donate his mansion to a grammar school but he likely did so out of bankruptcy, not altruism. My edits do not speculate as to why John Dickinson owned slaves or why he freed them. I merely state the fact that he was the largest slave owner in the colony of Delaware and the city of Philadelphia. His economic circumstance is directly relevant to Dickinson College getting his land and house.

Again, he was never the Governor of PA. He was the President of PA.

Stop removing my edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.79.190.67 (talk) 20:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

West Point

Carnegie classification aside, whether or not something is residential IS a binary state, either it is or it isn't. It is not permitted for students to live off-campus at West Point, therefore it is only a residential campus, which is what I was pointing out. Carnegie doesn't have a classification system for those institutions like our Military Schools which have no option BUT living on campus, so they're lumped in with the rest of the schools. If we state that its "highly residential" it can lead the reader to believe that there are some students who do not reside on campus, which is flat out incorrect. As its sourced, I'll leave it in, but consideration should be given to including something indicating that residing on campus is a must. 99.169.250.133 (talk) 10:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I completely disagree about "residential" being a binary state but I think that adding something about cadets being required to live on campus would be great! --ElKevbo (talk) 14:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

mistaken indef

Sorry about that, I actually only meant a week of semi-protect because of a problematic anon that's been going after the article because, as his edit history shows, he's all about USC only being South Carolina, which has created problems with this article whenever he reappears every few weeks. I finally had to give him a 24 hour block, though I don't necessarily expect him to realize it given his edit history. --Bobak (talk) 20:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Forgot to note that I also did reset it to 1 week. --Bobak (talk) 20:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Admin?

Have you ever considered becoming a candidate for adminship? The extra tools could help you be more effective in the many useful things you do around Wikipedia. --Orlady (talk) 17:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't care for the hassle, particularly the RFA process itself. I know where to find admins when I need them. :) --ElKevbo (talk) 17:22, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

OK. I definitely understand your perspective. --Orlady (talk) 17:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

University of Miami

I am a bit surprised by your comments on the history section of the University of Miami article. Since September 2, I have been working to bring it up to Good Article standards and into compliance with Wikipedia:College and university article guidelines. On the question of the 2003 fund raising campaign, we came to closure on Sept 5, with the sentence, "In 2003, the university launched a fund raising drive which grew its endowment to the point that it ranks 97th in size in the nation." That sentence remained stable and accepted until this week when User:Ryulong has replaced it with "During Shalala's leadership of the University of Miami, the Momentum fundraising campaign began in 2003 and by December 2007 had raised $1.4 billion, more than any other university in Florida. Its success inspired the University of Florida's campaign with $1.5 billion as its fundraising goal." That sentence is not consensus, but you restored it this morning on the grounds that my reverting it was "ownership" of the article. I assure you that I am not trying to control or own the contents of the article, but rather hours prior to my revert, I outlined substantive concerns on the talk page. In particular, 1) the name of the campaign was not "Momentum", 2) the stated goal of the campaign was not $1.4 billion (it was $1 billion), and 3) the reference does not support the claim that "Its success inspired the University of Florida...." I suggest that we establish a separate draft subpage of a user page to work out a new history section rather than repeatedly posting and reverting inaccurate information on the main article page.

I am please to see another editor get involved in improving the article and welcome your contributions. However, I trust that you will scrutinize each change you make rather than blindly reposting the inaccurate materials generated by others (particularly after the inaccuracies were discussed on the talk page). I am moving the history to User:Racepacket/UMhistory and invite you to work with me to perfect the draft there. Racepacket (talk) 16:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

When 2/3 of the editors actively involved in an article agree, that seems to be as close to "consensus" as one is going to get short of unanimity. :) But that only 3 editors are actively working on this article (realistically, just 2; I'm much more interested in process than content and have a very broad view of American college and university articles) and those editors disagree is a problem. I've posted on the university project's Talk page to solicit further input from other editors.

I don't really have a dog in this fight. I do agree with the other editor that the fact that the campaign was (is?) the most successful in Florida is notable. I don't care if it's credited to Shalala although it probably should given the immense fund-raising responsibilities of most modern university presidents. What I do care about is how you are going about editing the article. I know that you think that you're right and that we're foolish for disagreeing with you (we all think that way :) ). But you have to come to agreement with others and let the processes play out. Asserting that there is a consensus, even if the material has been stable for some period of time, does not mean that there actually is consensus. Let the processes play out and be willing to give.

Starting a subpage to address this section separately sounds like an excellent idea! --ElKevbo (talk) 16:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a stake in the University of Miami. I am working on this article because it does not have a separate wikiproject associated with it, and it failed its first attempt at GA because the identified deficiencies were not addressed. My involvement in higher education was at other institutions, including a four-year stint on a Board of Trustees. Racepacket (talk) 16:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The first tatempt at a GA failed because you and I were edit warring over the inclusion of "a.k.a.'s" in the lead sentence. There was nothing wrong with the content. What you have to do is let us work on the article without referring to "consensus" versions merely because they were there for a long time and no one did anything about them. Shit like this is getting old. Stop referring to the crap you put in the user subspace as the "consensus" version. I have tried to be patient with you (Racepacket), but enough is enough. What is preventing this article from reaching GA status are your methods by which to edit with others on the page.

ElKevbo, as you can tell I am really tired of dealing with the methods Racepacket is using after a month of "working" with him on this article. I've done all I can to address his concerns, but he just comes up with new concerns to throw a curveball, especially when this is how he answers me as to what needs fixing. These things are unnecessary subjective.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Miami

Tell me. Is this too much to ask?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• I don't understand your question, nor do I understand ElKevbo's answer. While this back conversation was going on, I have posted another invitation to comment on WP:UNI's talk page. Perhaps there are other views. Racepacket (talk) 19:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
• ElKevbo, the comment that you left on the Talk:University of Miami page was ambiguous. Did you mean to say that you thought that the comparison with the State of Florida should be left in or left out? Thanks. Racepacket (talk) 14:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that it should be left in. I'm not devoutly married to the idea but it seems notable and if we're going to go into detail then this seems like a detail that should be included. Thanks for asking! --ElKevbo (talk) 15:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

• I wasn't trying to relitigate, but when one leaves talk page messages, "you" could refer to either side. After moving on from that last detail, I turned to the other Miami articles. I wrote an new article for the red link about the Richmond Naval Air Station, built up the Miami Hurricanes article to cover all sports and not just baseball and football, and then turned to the Miami Hurricanes football article, which I found most challenging. It turns out the history portion of the article was copied from the UM website and the two have not drifted apart over two years because any edit is immediately reverted without any comment. Detailed proposals to removed POV-pushing langauge are rejected as "far too plain." The active editors on the page seem to want to produce a sports fan blog rather than an encyclopedia. Any attention you could give would be helpful. Thanks. Racepacket (talk) 16:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Racepacket

Your input here would be helpful.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

3rr

you think i was going to break that, no, but you know who did? --Buridan (talk) 03:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but you shouldn't be edit warring. --ElKevbo (talk) 03:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

danah boyd

At quick glance, I thought the summary of danah boyd's work was pretty good. Didn't understand your reasons for deletion. My own POV, we need more intellectual summaries. Bellagio99 (talk) 19:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to revert! I'll have to look at it again but I seem to remember thinking that it was an outdated view of her work. I think it referred to her MIT Press chapter as "forthcoming" which was a huge red flag since it's been out for a few years. Moreover, a summary of danah's work must include her dissertation, IMHO. --ElKevbo (talk) 21:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikinvest discussion

Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Wikinvest. Flowanda | Talk 19:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Halavais edits

Can you point me to an external location to verify current AOIR election results. I.e. the five elected officers for 2009-2011 - President, VP, Sec. Treas., student seat. Also the date that they take office. Thanks Wreid (talk) 22:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

It looks like they haven't yet updated the website but they sent out an announcement to the listserv. --ElKevbo (talk) 00:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!Wreid (talk) 01:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Quotes

ElK, No problem with your reversion of the quote in danah boyd's article, but amused that you think all quotes violate WP:POV. What about famous ones like MacArthur's "I shall return"? Cheers. Bellagio99 (talk) 15:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that particular quote has been cited enough times to establish that it's notable which makes it okay. I don't object to quotes per se. What I object to is Wikipedia authors pulling quotes from primary sources without establishing the notability of the quote. That's pretty a clear example of original research and a very dangerous road to go down. --ElKevbo (talk) 15:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Big 12 WikiProject

Hi, I've noticed you've been involved in editing Big 12 related articles. I'm trying to gauge the interested in created a Big 12 WikiProject and wondered if you'd like to be involved. There are already pages for WikiProject Big Ten and WikiProject ACC. A Big 12 project would cover the schools themselves and anything to do with conference sports including: events, rivalries, teams, seasons, championships and lore. There is already quite a bit of activity here on Wikipedia regarding the Big 12, and I think a project could help coordinate and unify our efforts. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Big 12, if you are interested and add your name to the list. Grey Wanderer (talk) 23:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Keep up the good work

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For keeping our university and education articles clean. -Mabeenot (talk) 02:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! --ElKevbo (talk) 02:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Warning ?

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to TCU Horned Frogs football‎, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --ElKevbo (talk) 05:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? All I did was rephrase what someone else had stated earlier. And please knock off the threatening tone. It is unnecessary, and in this case is unwarranted. I didn't do anything intentionally and honestly don't know what you are referring to. Can you give me a clue? The Moody Blue (talk) 23:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

C'mon buddy. These two edits cross the line and you know it. Sniping at the subject and citing "Internet blog speculation" is clearly unacceptable. --ElKevbo (talk) 00:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Colorado State University Capital Campaign

ElKevbo,

The two comments below will help you understand why I am contacting you.

I believe the content that I added in October (and that you deleted) on the Colorado State University page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_State_University) is useful for encyclopedia users. The university's first comprehensive campaign will inject $500 million into the campus, money that is already adding buildings, programs, and professors. Those things make up a university, and the history of how CSU got them (from 1870 to the present) is precisely what encyclopedia entries are made of. That process, the Campaign for Colorado State University, is re ligitamate entry. Will you restore it?

Please reply on my Talk page.

Flrdude (talk) 00:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Flrdude (talk) 05:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

According to the article history, your additions were removed by User:ElKevbo because they were "not particularly notable", the concern seems to be that while your edits were about something that was true, it was probably of trivial concern to an encyclopedia article. If you wish to discuss these edits, the best place to do it would be at Talk:Colorado State University; you should notify the above user by leaving a note at his talk page User talk:ElKevbo asking him to discuss the matter at the article talk page. --Jayron32 05:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Dear Sir or Madam,

I added some info to the Colorado State University page re: the University's recent announcement of a $500 million comprehensive campaign and today discovered that info had been removed. Why? It is as valid and factual as the other information presented.

I received a nice message from Joe Smack sooner after joining Wikipedia, but can't for the life of me figure out how to respond to him... or really anyone else for that matter.

Please reply on my Talk page.

Thank you,

Will reply on your Talk page as requested! --ElKevbo (talk) 01:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of YouTube celebrities (4th nomination)

As a major contributor to the article, I am letting you know about the 4th AFD. Ikip (talk) 21:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)