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.
Problem with unregistered editor
I noticed that you also were trying to get the attention of User talk:97.77.103.82. I got my article full protected to force him in his various aliases to discussion. Naturally, they locked the article 30 minutes after he reverted me! If you run across any ideas to get his attention. please keep me in mind! :) Student7 (talk) 21:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you show any indication that the crest has been used by the university in any capacity in the past three years? Other universities feature the crest on their webpages or in other materials, but St. John's does not use that image. The link that provides that this is the official university crest might be outdated. It appears from the SJU site and materials included thereon (i.e., School Handbook, Enrollment Materials, etc.) that the shield has replaced the crest as the emblem of the university. Please consider this in determining which image is used. In understand the desire for "uniformity," but I don't support it when it results in the inclusion of misleading data or potential misinformation. As of this time, I am hoping for more discussion on the school page from individuals who have a connection with the university (like myself) who might be more in the know than an outsider. Hopefully we can reach consensus that the crest should be replaced, as it is misleading since the university never uses it. Respectfully submitted --69.114.112.22 (talk) 02:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that a convincing, well-supported argument establishing that the institution doesn't use an image at all would be sufficient to justify using another image. In general, the consensus is to use an institution's formal seal at the top of an infobox with its less formal wordmark or logo at the bottom. If this institution no longer has a formal seal (which is a bit hard to believe and would require evidence) then it shouldn't be in the infobox.
If you haven't already done so, it would be best to post this discussion on the article's Talk page so everyone interested in the article can see it instead of just my fans/stalkers. :) Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 04:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree too much
I find myself agreeing so often with your comments, that I am concerned someone may think I am a sockpuppet! So I have refrained at times from saying "ditto." Keep up the good work! :) Student7 (talk) 22:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks!
I've been caught up in a few situations where that exact situation - a few good editors share the same opinion and aren't shy about making edits - has existed and sockpuppet accusations have been made. I think I was even blocked once by an overzealous administrator after one of those complaints. :) ElKevbo (talk) 00:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Northcentral University
Please refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Houston_State_University and references provided, US News ranking take into account only schools with AACSB accreditation and Carnegie Classifications take into account actual research. Less than 7% of universities in the US can clain to be an RU or DRU which are amongst the highest classifications per the CFAT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.194.123.195 (talk) 00:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I replied on the article's Talk page. Please respond there. ElKevbo (talk) 02:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Zoroastrianism
Hey, I'm wondering why you reverted my recent changes to the Zoroastrianism page. Wikipedia has Zoroastrianism classified as a Monotheistic religion, and it isn't. It's polytheistic. There are multiple gods. That is not monotheism. Wrjames7—Preceding undated comment added 17:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
I didn't revert your edit to that article. It looks like I did revert some of your other edits, however, as they appeared to be vandalism or unconstructive. ElKevbo (talk) 18:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Contribution team
Greetings! Please excuse this intrusion on your talk page, and allow me to invite you to participate in the newly-formed Wikipedia Contribution Team (WP:CONTRIB for short)! The goal of the team is to attract more and better contributions to the English Wikipedia, as well as to help support the fundraising team in our financial and editing contribution goals. We have lots of stuff to work on, from minor and major page building, to WikiProject outreach, article improvement, donor relations, and more—in fact, part of our mission is to empower team members to make their own projects to support our mission. Some of our projects only take a few minutes to work on, while others can be large, multi-person tasks—whatever your interest level, we're glad to have you.
If this sounds interesting, please visit WP:CONTRIB and sign onto the team. Even if there does not appear to be anything that really speaks out as being work you'd like to do, I'd encourage you to join and follow the project anyway, as the type of work we'll be doing will certainly evolve and change over time. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me, or ask on the team talk page. Regards, ⇒DanRosenthalWikipedia Contribution Team 22:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, this is a human edit (not a bot). I'm specifically contacting you as you expressed interest in the Campus Ambassador position, and the Wikipedia Contributions Team has a lot of commonality in working along with the Campus Ambassadors. You can reach me on my talk page, or by email at drosenthal@wikimedia.org with questions; I can't guarantee that I'll be checking back on your talk page often enough to hold a sustained conversation there. Regards, ⇒DanRosenthalWikipedia Contribution Team 22:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks
ElKevbo, thanks for proposing some good ideas and participating in the discussion section. I stated in the discussion that I believe your suggestion is a good one. Johnybegood365 (talk) 19:17, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome! ElKevbo (talk) 19:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I can see that you are a pretty experienced editor of the Wikipedia. Hence, I'm a little bit surprised that you consider that statement about Cho's possible exorcism to be sourced. None of the sources given specifically say that Cho's mother or the minister were seeking an exorcism for him. They state that they were looking for spiritual help, and that Korean ministers are likely to perform exorcisms. Inferring that the Presbyterian ministers that Cho's mother consulted were thinking about exorcism based on the likelihood of it (which is indeed sourced) constitutes a synthesis of published material, and therefore is not allowed in Wikipedia as indicated in the no original research guideline. I have opened a thread in the original research noticeboard about this matter. I kindly ask you to explain why you consider the statement to be well sourced in that thread so that we may concentrate opinions, discuss them, and hopefully reach a consensus. Thank you. --Legion fi (talk) 07:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - the same guy has reverted your edits there. I believe him to be wrong. MithrasPriest (talk) 14:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll look into it. ElKevbo (talk) 14:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Email
I sent you an email (not trying for votes or anything! :). Student7 (talk) 21:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Johns Hopkins
Could you please respond to the December 1 talk page inquiry from our Hopkins Interactive friend? I feel that I have taken the discussion as far as I can. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 13:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hunter
Might want to ask for a one week semi-protect for content. Maybe she will go away? :) Student7 (talk) 01:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While we seem to have some disagreemet over a particular word-choice, I appreciate your efforts to keep the unsourced rants at bay. I have now started an RfC with regards to the contentious word. Maybe that works. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556> haneʼ 00:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
UCLA
Hi! I've been putting up mobile phone website links around here. While mobile phone users usually get redirected to those sites, dialup users and users of slow computers (they are especially prevalent in third world countries) also very much benefit from these links. It would not be helpful to ask them to access the main website before going to the mobile site, since the main sites do not usually link to the mobile site.
WhisperToMe (talk) 02:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Sorry that I didn't leave you a message; I was going to do so but you got to me first!)
I'm not sure I agree. Has there been discussion of this somewhere already? If not, there should be as it sounds like a good discussion to have! ElKevbo (talk) 02:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Would you please hold off on adding the link to other articles until this has been hashed out? In return, I won't go around removing the ones you've already added. :) ElKevbo (talk) 02:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Much as it seems there are sockpuppets afoot at Chapman University right now, they do have a point. I'm not seeing strong sourcing to connect Jelena Jensen to the university. There was a reference to IMDB in this version of Jensen's article. However, IMDB was the only source supporting the change.
(And since I invoked sockpuppets, I'm not seeing anything abusive about how the accounts are acting to warrant any action on that front right now.)
If you pursue further and find a more reliable source on Jensen, let me know. If you were just (like me) patrolling changes made by new accounts and reverted the suspect removal and aren't doing anything futher, no problem. I'll probably do a little digging myself, and I may add one or both articles to my watchlist. —C.Fred (talk) 23:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll poke around a bit but I'm not particularly committed to including her in Chapman's article. Someone is clearly whitewashing the article but they have a point when they say that Jensen isn't particularly notable. But that doesn't seem to be a good reason to remove Chapman University from her article and I object to that without a better reason than whitewashing the image of Chapman University and less-than-ideal sourcing.
A quick search (not something you want to do from work!) shows many websites linking Jensen with Chapman University. But I don't know how reliable any of them are and if they should be used as sources as it's likely that many of them got their information from us in the first place. ElKevbo (talk) 23:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not at work, so I searched. :) (Yeah, don't open Jensen's official site at work, in front of kids, etc.) The Playboy TV bio of her corroborated the degree from Chapman. Now, they probably got the info from Jensen directly, so it may run a little close to self-published/primary sourcing. However, I'm willing to put a little more faith in Playboy saying that she graduated from there—or that Jensen claims she graduated from there—than I'm willing to put in a fan-editable source like IMDB. —C.Fred (talk) 23:37, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Help US...
Hi ElKevbo,
We just now saw the wiki black list we are shocked to see our website hotcoursesusa has been posted from various IP. i don't totally disagree with the point what you said, we have posted some external link with the IP 203.197.128.222, because of the ignorance of SEO person he has been repeatedly posting in external link. we have advised him not to engage like this activity again. hopefully we will make sure this wont happen again.
I don't control the blacklist; the folks at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam do. That would be the best place to appeal your website's inclusion in the blacklist. ElKevbo (talk) 14:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I was supposed to nominate them all together. Happy to let discussion on one get settled first. Jadunne (talk) 07:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be okay if you were to explicitly group all of them together in one nomination. I just don't think it would be very productive to nominate all of them individually as it seems that they are (or should) all come to the same conclusion.
Incidentally, I think you're completely wrong about the utility of these groupings. And it wouldn't even matter if you were right because these groupings are widely used in and out of academia. However, you might get some traction if you argue that the lists should be deleted as they're duplicative of the categories. In fact, I think I would support that as we should be letting the templates - which themselves should add/transclude the categories - do what they're meant to do instead of duplicating the categories with lists. ElKevbo (talk) 07:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. I wouldn't worry about an isolated incident with a hostile unregistered editor. ElKevbo (talk) 20:52, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I wasn't worried until you told me not to worry.... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
License tagging for File:USC seal card white cropped.png
Thanks for uploading File:USC seal card white cropped.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.
You reverted an addition I made that cited an article from http://www.onlinedegreereviews.org/. You claim that it is not a reputable source. I have two issues:
I think it would have been cleaner to have a discussion about this on the talk page of the article. I would like to avoid an edit war if possible.
Please provide a citation or reference attesting to why that website is not reputable.
With respect, the burden is on you to provide evidence that the website is reliable and reputable. I removed the site without raising the question in Talk because the website is based on reviews allegedly written by students so it seems highly unlikely that it's reliable. And I could be wrong but I strongly suspect that it's not very reputable, either (i.e. others don't regularly cite it as a quality source of information). ElKevbo (talk) 16:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While the usefulness and validity of sources varies, eliminating published sources outright is problematic. To strike the contribution from a source unilaterally hopefully implies that the source is entirely unacceptable. Yet, how can anyone disprove a suspicion? How can a suspicion be enough to wholly discard an entire website? After all, this isn't some blog: it has been around for four years and has 3,299 student contributors.
My efforts were to improve an article with citations. I do not agree that student opinions constitute unreliable data. That being said, I agree this isn't a high quality source: after all, it is run by one individual, not an organization. I also agree that the validity of some of the data in the website is questionable, and worthy of critical skepticism. What I fail to understand, however, is what justifies eliminating the question all together? --Musides (talk) 21:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's unreliable and we have no evidence that this ranking system is used by anyone else as a valid and respected source of information. We can't simply add whatever information we want to articles because it's sourced to a website. There are standards for including information and citing references; this fails to meet those standards.
Incidentally, I don't believe that student self-reported data is inherently unreliable. In fact, much of my own research is based primarily on just that kind of data. But that doesn't mean that all student self-reported data are created equal. As best as I can tell, these data are poorly-collected and unreliable. We don't even know for sure if these really are students at these institutions since there don't appear to be sufficient safeguards in place to assure that is the case.
If I'm missing something and this really is a respected, reliable source, please let me know. And please supply sources. ElKevbo (talk) 21:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think your logic is creating a causality dilemma: if a source's reliability is contingent on it being used by others, then the first to use the source will do it in an unreliable manner. It is hard to see how something at one moment would be unreliable, yet becomes reliable when repeated multiple times. Instead, I think the question is one of quality rather than quantity. My position is that while the quality of the student data here may not be rigorous, it requires several input controls and therefore provides one reasonable, albeit imperfect, measure. As such, I think it is data worthy of consideration and it is unreasonable to wholly dismiss it. --Musides (talk) 22:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It might be helpful to read up on Wikipedia's conception of reliability; it's not how we typically use the term and it can be confusing. Reliability isn't caused by others using a source but it helps us know that others consider the source to be important so it gets more at what I'm referring to as reputability. A well-used source could be unreliable.
But I'm not understanding how you come to the conclusion that this website is particularly reliable. What evidence do we have of that? ElKevbo (talk) 03:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problem! Sorry I can't actually help with the substantive issue you raised; it's outside of my areas of expertise. ElKevbo (talk) 18:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
horizontal scrollbar
I saw your notice here about the horizontal scrollbars. I finally figured it out after some trial and error: in my preferences, I had enabled the gadget to widen the Wikipedia search box ("Widen the search box in the Vector skin.") . Once I disabled that, my stupid horizontal scrollbar went away! Hope this works for you! — Fourthords |=/\= | 01:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, that did it! Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 01:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
York U
The situation goes back a few months, a dispute over the image fell apart and there has been no communication from IP and new users. Now with what I believe are socks and sock IP attempting to change the image to one that suit that schools administration or whatever office or person behind it. I still question the free use of the image, attempts to communicate always answer with silence so I simply summarily revert. Its always the same specific uploaded image added, thats how I identify the user. Outback the koala (talk) 18:35, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please drop a note on the article's Talk page explaining all of that so the rest of us will know what is going on? Right now, it just looks an edit war between two communicative editors who are not talking to one another or anyone else. That doesn't seem to be an accurate representation of what's happening but without any information it's a reasonable conclusion. So help us out a bit, please! ElKevbo (talk) 18:50, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Harvard
Thanks, but darn you... We had an edit conflict adding Gates (your bus. & phil. was better than my MS founder) and I didn't get to use my best edit summary of the month, to wit: "with it's nose all toasty, the camel wants to get its ears warm too..." Fat&Happy (talk) 23:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry! But you may have a good point - about mentioning Microsoft, not the camel thing. :) Feel free to add it! I might do so myself after thinking it about for a while. ElKevbo (talk) 23:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think I was living in the past a bit. Ten years ago, "Microsoft founder" would probably have been the correct description; today not so much. How about splitting the difference as "philanthropist and founder of Microsoft"?
I hope I'm wrong about the camel/tent analogy, but I doubt it. I think the greatest controlling factor, though, might be the scarcity of high-profile people whose status as non-graduating former students of specific colleges has been widely publicized. Fat&Happy (talk) 04:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think we should take this issue to dispute resolution? P. D. CookTalk to me! 05:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. Start with an RfC? ElKevbo (talk) 11:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed many similarities among those who oppose the reinstatement of "public" in both the infobox and lead. For example, {| class="messagebox standard-talk" style="{{{style}}}"
|
| 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.
|}
many of them haven't edited for a full year up until yesterday. They have edited some of the same articles, and have all edited college/fraternal society articles. I've noticed that one of the accounts will comment, and then ten minutes later another one will comment, followed by hours of silence. None of them have made a user page. Do you think it could be one person controlling these accounts? My evidence is a little light to initiate an SPI. P. D. CookTalk to me! 22:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've thought the same thing but haven't had enough evidence to bring it up. But I also imagine that other experienced editors who see or participate in the discussion will think the same thing. ElKevbo (talk) 22:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I left a note on the article's Talk page. No accusations, merely noting a hard-to-believe coincidence. ElKevbo (talk) 23:10, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
McGill
I'm OK with your removing my comments along with the silliness that triggered it. You might want to check with that one other user, who actually alerted me to it. I had already zapped a couple of additional rants from the OP. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 03:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If it bothers anyone then I'm totally fine being reverted - that would be no problem whatsoever for me! ElKevbo (talk) 03:37, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
