User talk:ElKevbo/Archive 18

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.

Trident University International (Also called: Sweet irony).

Some more proof that Murphy's law actually exists. I mention some care with the reverts and naturally my next edit is a complete miss. Thanks for fixing that one Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 19:06, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

No problem; happy to help! ElKevbo (talk) 19:23, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• Hi ElKevbo, Many thanks for your help (reverting edit) on the TUI article. I have been having a hard time with this as the IP user (using various addresses) has been removing the content on TUI offering Doctoral degree for quite a while. Does this not count as vandalizing? --Audit Guy (talk) 09:03, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, probably. If it continues we can ask for the editor to be blocked if he or she seems to be consistently using the same IP address or the article to be semi-protected so unregistered and new editors can't edit it. No big deal. ElKevbo (talk) 17:45, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

And it's already been semi-protected for two weeks by an administrator. ElKevbo (talk) 18:10, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I requested for it to be semi-protected. It appears that the IP user has now written on the talk page complaining/objecting to it. Audit Guy (talk) 03:52, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm assuming that he or she will lose or has already lost interest in this bizarre series of edits. If he or she continues to behave in this way in the coming weeks we can address it otherwise I don't care to do so myself. ElKevbo (talk) 13:47, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Help with Thunderbird School of Global Management?

Hey ElKevbo, I'm reaching out to see if you might be willing to help with reviewing and placing a new draft for the article about the Thunderbird School of Global Management, since you helped with a small thing there before. I've drafted a new version of the article, which closely complies with Wikipedia's guidelines, and uploaded it to my userspace. I've also posted a note over at Talk:Thunderbird with some details about what I've changed. If you have time, do you think you'd be willing to help work through this? Cheers! ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 17:29, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

This is now  Done! ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 20:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

The good ol' days

Re [1]: While working on John Harvard (statue), I ran into a discussion in Harvard Magazine (then the Harvard Alumni Magazine, or something) from sometime in the 1920s, in which worry was expressed that a proposed tuition increase (or maybe it was tuition + costs), from something like $150 to something like $250 -- almost double! Gracious! -- threatened to transform Harvard into a school attended only by children of the elite.

Even as recently as [year redacted], when I was admitted, costs of attendance were at levels that now seem preposterously low. As I recall Harvard had just announced that total costs were rising from $6000 to $7000, and my parents were going out of their minds. How can we afford this? Should we mortgage the house? EEng (talk) 22:00, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't very long ago that nearly all public and some private institutions were free. Some European countries (and probably on other continents) still offer free university education to citizens. This makes the meteoric rise in tuition and fees over the past couple of decades even more astonishing (and shameful in many ways). ElKevbo (talk) 22:15, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

from Philosophy of education

These secondary sources are cited in numerous Wikipedia articles . . . Eudemus ap. Proclus, 65.7 Diogenes Laertius I.27 and Plutarch (De Is. et Os. 131) Hdt. II.178; Stobaeus, Ecl., jEklogaiv ['Selections'] Strab. 17.1.18 Contra Apionem I.2

When you said . . .

If you can't provide explicit sources that link those writing to the modern concept of "philosophy of education" as described in this article then yes, that is original research to make that link yourself. If there is such a clear and undisputed link as you seem to be claiming then it shouldn't be very hard to provide references that explicitly support that claim, right? ElKevbo (talk) 17:34, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

and these additional sources were referenced . . .

Retrieved 28 January 2014 from http://www.iep.utm.edu/thales/ Boyer 1991, "Ionia and the Pythagoreans" p. 43 Stmullin (talk) 15:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

with the comment . . .

There is nothing in the article to restrict discussion to "modern" and if there was such a restiction then the terms Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Humanism, and Constructivism would be the discussion headers . . . because those are the "modern" philosophies of education.Stmullin (talk) 18:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Leads me to believe that I am being Wiki-hounded since Thales of Miletus is an indisputable philosopher of education from Ancient Greece, evidenced by other Wikipedia article.

WHY am I being Wiki-hounded? Stmullin (talk) 18:59, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

My web page: http://technology4kids.info/

I'm sorry that you feel like you're being hounded but there is absolutely nothing wrong with other editors asking you for explicit references that link material you've written with the topic of the article in which you'd like that material be inserted. It's not personal and you shouldn't take it as such. ElKevbo (talk) 21:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Eight references were given and defended based on appropriate, accepted use in other Wikipedia articles . . . unfortunately, no one in this discussion reads Ancient Greek or has access to the original tablets so a discussion of syntax is fruitless. Stmullin (talk) 00:22, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

History changes on Capella University

Hi ElKevbo - I worked for Capella University and founded the online program/department as I documented. How is it that I would not be a reliable reference since, it is about my own work? How do artists cite themselves and comment on their own work, elsewhere on Wikipedia? Anyway, I am new at this and just learned why you've been re-editing my amendments. THX! Srarakawa (talk) 06:25, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll reply on your Talk page. ElKevbo (talk) 15:17, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

ElKevbo - Thank you for your quick response! I understand the point of Wikipedia (especially after really thinking about it), so I looked into some "reliable sources". The University's page itself appears to be self-referential in many spots, so I assume these qualify as creditable (and will most likely submit references of this type - if that is ok). As well, the vast majority of my references consist of private employment or business data, which is pretty hard to get a hold of this late in the game, but I will try.

Kev - a couple questions, though if you could provide clear answers... How does, let's say an artist comment on his/her own work on Wikipedia? Is the artist strictly at the mercy of someone else who can simply "publish" something in a more traditional medium and then cite it? Do some other channels for this kind of activity exist in Wikipedia? Thanks for your help ;o) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.242.56.30 (talk) 20:40, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Kev - Thanks again for your response, but my question still remains unanswered (I think). So, let me try again... How does an artist, author or any creative comment on his own work or others comments regarding his work, when he has no "reliable" references? How does one protect from, let's say "revisionist history" or versions of history that are simply untrue (not that this is the case)? Thanks & Take Care! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srarakawa (talk • contribs) 23:07, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

RfC philosophy of education

The RfC must remain in place for 30 days before the information is reverted. If you do not reinstate the page as it was then I will take this to arbitration. Stmullin (talk) 16:06, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

You do what you feel is right. I'm not swayed by an RfC that was started only after every other editor who provided opinions weighed in against your opinion. Nor do I believe that it's necessary to draw out administrative processes unnecessarily. If this were a muddled issue, a complicated one, or one where there are clearly editors who hold many different opinions then I'd feel differently. But this is a pretty clear case.

I won't strenuously object if you want to restore the article to it's pre-RfC state until it runs its full course. I think that's a waste of time but it won't really harm anything. (And it would be a tiny bit better than the mal-formatted version that someone else just tried out.) ElKevbo (talk) 17:49, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

The new format is the most diplomatic solution to the biography issue . . . I just hope that someone who writes well can make the Historical and theoretical roots section read like an encyclopedic article.Stmullin (talk) 19:23, 13 February 2014 (UTC) How about you? do you have time to edit that section?Stmullin (talk) 23:51, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Gendered words and phrases vs Politically Correct Definitions

There are numerous examples of words, labels and idioms that are pretty much exclusively used for one sex or the other. Constructing a dictionary that does not reflect linguistic reality and culture is both dishonest and politically correct. How often are men called sluts? How often are women labeled douchebags? Well?

The phrase "walk of shame" is applied almost universally to women. Please read the 1st 2 paragraphs of the following URL http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/04/shame-sex-women-regret-evolution for confirmation of what I thought was common knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realitybeam (talk • contribs) 16:51, February 19, 2014‎

We should have exceptionally good evidence if we are going to explicitly link a pejorative to a particular group of people in an encyclopedia article. A single news article doesn't come close to meeting that bar. If you have substantial evidence supporting your assertion, please share in the Talk page of the article or add it to the article directly. ElKevbo (talk) 16:01, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)1. This is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary; you may be looking for Wiktionary.

2. If you wish to have substantive discussions about topics like this, use of loaded phrases like "politically correct" is counter-indicated, as they are extremely unproductive, since they poison the well before the discussion begins. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:59, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

@Mike. A. This is the correct place. I don't appreciate your dismissive deflection. B. An initial comment "that seems a bit sexist" lobbed at me warrants a volley of "politically correct" lobbed back. C. You pick sides and condescend. Don't shake your finger at me about "unproductive." Don't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realitybeam (talk • contribs) 22:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Please move this conversation to the article's Talk page if we're going to discuss substantive issues related to the article. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 22:35, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Oberlin College in Popular Culture

Hello! Thanks for your edits on the Oberlin College page. I'm interested in incorporating an "In Popular Culture" section and would like to revise my edit so that it fits better within the article. I understand your suggestion for sources, but am curious if you mean more than simply proving the references exist. Is there a way you would recommend for discerning which mentions are notable and which are not? (For example, the use of Oberlin as a major plot symbol in the TV show "Girls" is more important than an briefly on an episode of "Gilmore Girls"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moonboots (talk • contribs) 20:43, February 24, 2014‎

For something to be included in a Wikipedia article, we must have reliable sources supporting it. It's not enough to establish that the popular culture reference exists but you need to provide a reliable source supporting the fact that these popular culture references are significant and tied to Oberlin College. ElKevbo (talk) 03:35, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

McGill University

Please have a look on this GA, where my improvement of the lead was reverted by a user back to a version which, in my opinion, contradicts the wiki's rule of neutral point (due and undue weight) as quite a lot of rankings were mentioned there (they should appear on the corresponding section). Thanks! Biomedicinal (contact) 12:49, 26 February 2014

Lincoln Green

Hi- I took a bit of trouble to help this editor as I am worried that things are getting very theoretical. I rarely find any advice that can be accessed- and then understood by a newbie. I don't find the: either/or/or maybe/or yet again approach to be very helpful at newby level. I think it is admirable that we have a new editor- and isolating his first attempt at an coi article in User:/subspace- then posting it to Talk: page for in effect a peer review- sets up an easily understandable model we can use in future. As I have said already- I don't edit articles from your side of the pond but happy to give some input on structure and on which terms are a mystery for European readers, I would like to get a help template out of this that can be thrown into the general paid editing debate. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 19:49, 28 February 2014 (UTC) (The coffee is on the hob- if you fancy popping round)

Newberry College

ElKevbo, Would you not agree that information regarding accreditation and Newberry's warning status belongs in the accreditation section? The SACSCOC disclosure statement regarding the warning status is cited in the new edits. Thanks. Jtboice (talk) 04:43, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

No. A warning from an accreditor is quite serious and such information belongs in the lead where other vital information about the subject is placed.

I also advise you to consult our policy regarding edit warring. It's fine that you made the original edits and that I reverted them but the next step is to discuss the issue, not for you to begin an edit war. So please revert your edits and take the issue to the article's Talk page. ElKevbo (talk) 05:01, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

re Textbook article

[ex Rjensen talk page] It's Bold, Revert, Discuss, not Bold, Revert, Begin an edit war. Please self-revert and begin a discussion in Talk. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 03:58, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

re: textbook No that's a misreading: The wp:BRD recommends against erasing serious material without a serious explanation. it says: "revert an edit if it is not an improvement, and it cannot be immediately fixed by refinement. Consider reverting only when necessary. It is not the intention of this page to encourage reverting. When reverting, be specific about your reasons in the edit summary." Your offhand claim that 18 cites for a major topic covering every discipline in the modern university is "way too many" is silly; I suggest your decision to reduce the reading list to zero items seems a bit like anti-intellectualism.Rjensen (talk) 04:22, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Following up on The Art Institutes

Hi there Elkevbo. I'm not sure if you've been following the conversation on The Art Institutes Talk page, but the issue of whether to remove the information about EDMC from the article's lead has yet to be resolved. Marketdiamond's last reply said he was on the fence about removing the mention, so I wanted to check in with you to see if you had any additional thoughts. Would you be able to make the edit if you agree that the information doesn't belong in the article? Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 14:34, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Not to be hounding you, hopefully, but this item is still unresolved if you have a chance to take a look. There are also a few other issues I'd like your thoughts on (if you have even more time, that is). In short, it is my feeling that edits are being made to the EDMC article and the articles for its schools that are intended to highlight negative information, rather than presenting facts neutrally and in proper context, in a way that is appropriate for Wikipedia. I've left notes about each on their respective Talk pages:

• Off-topic / unnecessary information about recruiting practices has been added to the introductions of both the EDMC and The Art Institutes articles. Would you feel comfortable removing it?
• A new Controversy section was added to the Brown Mackie College article. I'd like to get editors' opinions on whether the information there should be moved.
• I've suggested some changes to the Legal Issues section on the Argosy University article.

I've reached out to a few other editors as well, but I'd appreciate any assistance here. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 18:47, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

The "online" phrase for BYU

Hi! Thanks for helping me out. I'm new. Could you point me to the talk page discussion you mentioned where it was decided to include the "online" phrase for the introductory paragraph of BYU? It just seems to make the paragraph harder to read, and I feel like the reader might already assume that. Thanks for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stairs24 (talk • contribs) 19:11, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

This is the section where we discussed this issue. I don't recall if we specifically addressed the particular language that should be used but I believe the discussion focused on how to accurately state the enrollment of the university without being misleading or confusing. ElKevbo (talk) 19:55, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 3 April

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Northeastern University page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:54, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

University of Wisconsin-Whitewater

A request for comments on the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater article has been posted on the article's talk page. Please contribute your thoughts and ideas. 71.139.142.29 (talk) 15:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

OER inquiry

Hi ElKevbo, I'm sending you this message because you're one of about 300 users who have recently edited an article in the umbrella category of open educational resources (OER) (or open education). In evaluating several projects we've been working on (e.g. the WIKISOO course and WikiProject Open), my colleague Pete Forsyth and I have wondered who chooses to edit OER-related articles and why. Regardless of whether you've taken the WIKISOO course yourself - and/or never even heard the term OER before - we'd be extremely grateful for your participation in this brief, anonymous survey before 27 April. No personal data is being collected. If you have any ideas or questions, please get in touch. My talk page awaits. Thanks for your support! - Sara FB (talk) 20:39, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Notice of RfC and request for participation

There is an RfC in which your participation would be greatly appreciated:

• Talk:Gun_control#RfC:_Remove_Nazi_gun_control_argument.3F

Thank you. --Lightbreather (talk) 15:37, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

University of Cambridge

Sorry to disturb. A user has reverted my edits continuously with the major dispute of the organization of the lead. I'd like to have your opinion on the talk page. Thanks! biomedicinal (talk) 09:41, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Maine bound adventure center‎

The articles was already prodded before, so I removed your prod. However, I think it is a perfect candidate for AfD. Write up an AfD and I'll come by and say 'delete'. Bgwhite (talk) 21:43, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Katie Howard article

Hola! Just moving the discussion about the weight over here :) . So I should scale back, possibly dramatically, stuff that is included in the Vanguard? I was thinking about cutting out the part about a rematch, and the part about the judges. Although they are verifiable, I do see your point. This is also helpful for me because I'm not trying to push the rematch/robbery point of view, I just thought it was neat.My goal is just to get the article to stick. Any other advice/criticism would be fantastic. Corporatemonster (talk) 15:03, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't know anything about that specific person or MMA in general so I may not be a good person to ask for advice. I'm also aware that MMA articles have been bizarrely contentious in Wikipedia so I'm loathe to become involved in what may become a conflict in which I have no interest or stake. But in general I recommend minimizing material in any article if that material is only documented by one (minor) source. Even if the source is reliable the fact that it's the only source can be (and often is) easily interpreted as indicating that the material isn't very important or well-known enough to warrant significant inclusion in an encyclopedia article. That's not a slight against the subject, the source, the material, or any of the authors but a reasonable generalization we often use in trying to figure out what to include in an article and how to include it. ElKevbo (talk) 17:49, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

You loathe to get involved, yet you have weighed in and determined, despite multiple pieces of evidence to the contrary (which remain unadressed), that the university paper is not a reliable source. I'm just pointing out inconsistencies in your stance. However, what's done is done, and what you do is up to you.

However, I do thank you for your insight, and I have made changes to the article. Thank you. Corporatemonster (talk) 05:31, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Rowan and Carnegie Classification

I wonder when they'll do an update; it's been 4 years. It's certainly going to move out of Master's institutions.  RasputinAXP  14:40, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Albright College

I noticed that you applied a double standard on the Albright College article with regard to famous alumni Jon Dough. There are many famous alumni on the site who have no citations at all. I will remove these people after I finish this post. Either the rule applies for all, or it doesn't apply at all. 209.203.120.74 (talk) 23:56, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Please feel free to remove unsourced information! It's common to give a free pass to alumni entries that have their own Wikipedia article but if you want to be really strict about WP:RS then you can remove them from the article, too. Other editors might object but you'd be correct by a strict application of our policies. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 00:54, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Done! In fact, I also deleted another unverified statement in the article. I think I'll start checking other articles and clean them up to! 209.203.120.74 (talk) 02:12, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Mexico Edits

Avisos Importantes

Hi ElKevbo. I was adding some information on diploma mills in Mexico that I found along with links to Mexico practices on Post-secondary education that I believe are helpful in understanding the system in Mexico. When I read the current information under Mexico, I found it hard to believe that Alliant International University and it's predecessor, United States International University, who are Regionally accredited and who has a WASC accredited branch in Mexico City, were part of the article. When I checked the links to the current material listed I found the link to the article listing the eleven schools is broken and that this information could not be verified. I tried to check internet archives to get the details of the referenced material with no success so I removed the list of the names of all of the schools due to the broken link. Perhaps you can find the archived link. I would like to add back the new materials I added in the mean time, unless you have a reason for me not doing so.Angelone7749 (talk) 15:46, 23 June 2014 (UTC) 16:52, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Dear Elkevbo. I have not heard back from you so I took the liberty of providing you the url's where the pdf of the listed schools are supposed to be. I located the Mexico Secretary of Education archived site on the Internet ArchivesMexico Secretary of Education Official Site. From there I chose the web archive that was closest to the date when the article was first (May 23,2006). The closet web archive was June 13, 2006.Web Archive for June 13, 2006. I proceeded to the link for important advisories. Important Advisories. I chose the referenced advisory titled: ""Instituciones de Eduacación Superior sin reconocimiento de validez oficial"". and went to that url. PDF of the Article . When I clicked on the link for the article, I got a message that the article has not been archived.Notice that article was not archived. Without the verification, I request that we remove the reported content of the pdf article from the Mexico section of the Diploma Mill article. The detail is the listing of the eleven schools. As I stated earlier the fact that this list supposedly includes several accredited schools, is puzzling and doesn't make sense. I also want to add back the other content that I added to the Mexico portion of the article. I await your review and reply.Angelone7749 (talk) 15:46, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Occidental College Sexual Assault

Re: your edits of Occidental College's Wikipedia page. Wikipedia is not the place to debate back and forth the issue of campus sexual assault at a single institution, in this case Occidental College. You don't see that going on on the Wikipedia pages of most of the 62 institutions the federal government is investigating regarding compliance with Title IX related to sexual violence. For example, there is no mention of this topic on the Wikipedia page for UC Berkeley, where this has been a big issue, or at Harvard or Swarthmore or . . . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_California,_Berkeley https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_University https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swarthmore_College

It is also not the place to cite names of specific administrators or to state or imply that they should not be employed at the college because they have received a faculty vote of no confidence. This kind of faculty vote frequently happens at colleges, and the writer must be cautious about defaming or damaging an individual by publishing possibly biased assertions not founded in any neutral investigation or employment action.

A debate like this can go on endlessly. Now there is a lawsuit by a male student at Occidental College alleging that his treatment was too harsh over a sexual incident where both parties were drunk and active encouragement by the female was documented. He is suing the College for lack of due process. Please see the coverage below in the LA Times and on Fox News.

http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-sexual-assault-legal-20140608-story.html#page=1

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/06/05/good-grades-good-home-gets-college-student-profiledas-rapist-claims-lawsuit/

http://reason.com/blog/2014/06/04/occidental-expels-student-for-rape-under

And some of the debate nationally is now turning to the student "hook-up culture" and heavy drinking that are among the root causes of the sexual assault/misbehavior issue on college campuses currently. Please see the two articles in the LA Times, below.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-adv-zimmerman-sexual-assault-college-hookups-20140508-story.html

http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-0610-banks-campus-assaults-20140610-column.html

Finally, Occidental College recently published the data on sexual assault/misbehavior from 2009-2013. The college details its handling of the reported sexual misconduct during that period of time:

"From August 2009 through December 2013, the College received 24 complaints of sexual assault and non-consensual sexual touching. In two instances, the complainant declined to file a formal report; of the other 22, 21 were investigated and 18 went to hearing. (In two cases, respondents admitted to the conduct during the investigation; in the third case, the respondent withdrew before a hearing could be held. One case was not investigated because the respondent admitted to the conduct before the investigation started.)

Respondents in 16 cases were found responsible for sexual misconduct ranging from sexual harassment and non-consensual touching to non-consensual intercourse. In nine of these cases, respondents were expelled. The other seven cases in which respondents were found responsible resulted in various combinations of suspension, probation, letters of apology, forfeiture of campus positions, prohibition against engaging in campus activities, community service, and educational sanctions. These were cases decided under the old policy, Tranquada notes. Under the new interim policy, the range of sanctions has been narrowed, an area that will be subject to further review."

See: http://www.oxy.edu/magazine/spring-2014/clery-clarity

Should all of this information now be posted on Occidental's wikipedia page, to provide balance and combat bias in the wikipedia entry? Should the various sides in the debate move onto the pages of the other 61 institutions being investigated by the Dept of Education?

The point is, the debate can go on endlessly, back and forth, and Wikipedia is not the place for this kind of debate. Such a practice by definition violates wikipedia's policies against bias. It raises continuous questions about which side has more information posted about the debate? Is it fair? Is it biased? Who has the last word?

The college's wikipedia page originally had basic, neutral information about the College that is of interest to the general public. Then you posted information about the sexual assault lawsuits brought by Occidental students, which was arguably not neutral because it did not place this in context by reference to similar issues on other campuses. Then I posted information from the College about how they instituted new policies to prevent sexual assault, encourage reporting, and handle the incidents better, to balance the arguably biased information presented about the sexual assault cases. Then you posted new material asserting that many people doubt the efficacy of the college's measures, quoting some personal opinion articles among your sources. Then I edited that out because it unbalanced the article again and thus inserted bias. Then you added that section back. So now to re-balance the article, all of the information cited above would have to be added.

Again, wikipedia is not the place for this kind of ongoing debate. The Occidental College article is balanced with a description of the charges of lack of proper handling of sexual abuse allegations, followed by a summary of the college's efforts to increase the effectiveness of its handling of this issue. That is where the article should end.

Given your interest in this topic, why don't you start a Wikipedia page on the campus sexual assault debate of 2013-14, which is a nationwide phenomenon. Include information on the various aspects of the debate, the number of colleges involved, the federal agencies' roles, the statements by President Obama (who attended Occidental College) and Vice President Biden, etc. Make sure to keep it neutral and balanced, survey the field of the institutions involved, relate back to the history of the Penn State sexual assault incidents and the resulting DOE Dear Colleague letter of 2011,and cite only verifiable, edited news reporting sources or original documents.

Globalglo (talk) 18:52, 19 June 2014 (UTC)Globalglo

Jonathan Veitch

Please read the wikipedia entry on the debate about whether the blog Huffington Post is a credible news source. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Huffington_Post HuffPo is widely debated as a source of vetted, edited, credible journalism, and many other citations about this debate could be provided. See http://askus.baker.edu/a.php?qid=390061 HuffPo is called a news aggregator and a blog site, and it is not considered authoritative (as for example the New York Times or a scholarly article based on research).

A number of the statements made by Tyler Kingkade in his blog that you cited about Occidental college and the sexual assault controversy demonstrate the issues in the debate about HuffPo's reliability and bias. To perform the investigations mandated by the 2011 DOE Dear Colleague Letter on sexual misconduct, colleges must gather evidence. Text messages and emails are important evidence that are reviewed in virtually every sexual misconduct case. Gathering this material from faculty and students is a typical part of these investigations. The DOE doesn't mandate the specific information to be collected, but it mandates the investigations and the investigation process on campuses requires collection of this material. This is a legal discovery process like any others, managed by attorneys, and the Kingkade article should have pointed this out.

Kingkade did not quote any specific sources by name on the seizure of laptops and cell phones, did not balance his article with interviews from a variety of sources, and in general did not adhere to basic principles of unbiased journalism. For example, at Occidental College over 40 faculty signed the letter below this May:

From: Gretchen North <gnorth@oxy.edu> Date: Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 1:52 PM Subject: [Oxy-faculty-l] Letter of Faculty Concern To: oxy-faculty-l@oxy.edu Dear Colleagues,

We write to you today out of concern for the well being of the College, and out of a sense that our faculty participation in College issues is becoming increasingly unproductive. Although several of the issues currently on our minds might only have emerged through direct and forceful confrontation, we believe that the animosity and polarization that now characterize our participation have put the College in a dangerous position. It seems to us that we now find ourselves in an unsustainable, adversarial deadlock, and that our failure to let go of hostility and work our way toward constructive solutions becomes more damaging every day. Elements vital to the College’s mission—Admissions, Institutional Advancement, Alumni Relations—and Sexual Assault Adjudication—are now facing serious difficulties carrying out their work, and our internal acrimony is exacerbating these very serious problems. Evidence that our participation has crossed a line into unproductive opposition has been building for some time, but was clearly manifest in the March Faculty Meeting in which personal animosities, anger, and accusation overwhelmed our capacity for reasoned, productive discussion of the issues.

We understand that not all members of the faculty will share this view, including faculty who believe that all responsibility for our current crisis falls on the Administration. We also understand that our current tensions are an effect of serious and important work on the part of faculty to improve our institution. But the impassioned antipathy in faculty gatherings has intimidated others from speaking in that environment, and we find ourselves unable to judge where the faculty as a whole stands on these matters. So we write to you in an effort to get some sense of that, and out of a conviction that it is our responsibility as faculty to guide the College through difficult times. Under current circumstances we think this responsibility requires that we question not just the College Administration but also the character and viability of our own participation in College affairs, and that all of us return to constructive, cooperative forms of engagement that cultivate a deep sense of multicultural community. If you share these concerns we ask that you respond to this message (by reply email) and add your name to this letter of concern, which we will present to Faculty Council for consideration and discussion.

Sincerely,

Bevin Ashenmiller Renee Baran Beth Braker Lesley Chiou Shana Goffredi Laura Hebert Mary Beth Heffernan Andrea Hopmeyer Gorman Gretchen North Dan Pondella Joseph Schulz Andrew Shtulman Dan Snowden-Ifft Lisa Sousa Woody Studenmund Kerry Thompson Dolores Trevizo Kirsten Wandschneider Dale Wright

Gretchen North Professor, Biology Occidental College Los Angeles, CA 90041 323-259-2898

So there were obviously other points of view on the Occidental faculty that Kingkade did not report in his blog.

In any case, the point remains that inserting a back and forth debate on controversial matters of this nature is not appropriate on Wikipedia, especially on a biographical page about a living person.

Globalglo (talk) 19:45, 19 June 2014 (UTC)Globalglo

Why do you keep deleting?

Hello Mr. Guidry, I have been trying to update Brevard College's Wikipedia site for the past year or so and your name keeps coming up as deleting our information from the site. I was just inquiry on why?

Last Deletion:

ElKevbo (talk | contribs) . . (2,931 bytes) (-7,305) . . (rv obvious POV and likely copyright violations)

There haven't been any copyright violations, for all the information is Brevard College's. Please advise to why... and if you could, please stop deleting our information.

Caublecl (talk) 19:35, 15 July 2014 (UTC)Christie Cauble Assistant Director of Communications

First, you really shouldn't be making substantive edits to your employer's article. This is an encyclopedia, not a venue for people to promote their companies or causes, so we try to enforce some standards related to conflicts of interest and neutrality, one of our core tents.

Second, your edits were inappropriate and unacceptable on several levels. Your most recent set of edits added a bunch of "facts" that were mostly copied from the college's website. The material was very closely paraphrased, written in incomplete sentences (mostly because of the material that was not copied from the college webpage), and not at all in compliance with our Manual of Style or guidelines for articles of this type. The last three issues could certainly be fixed with some additional editing but the first issue is a non-starter. Your other sets of edits were blatantly promotional and likely copied from some of the college's own materials.

We welcome your participation in this collaborative project. But this is a large, diverse group that shares a common purpose which is to build an encyclopedia. I again advise you to read our conflict of interest policy and I strongly suggest you find other articles to edit. ElKevbo (talk) 00:07, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

So I take it all other Colleges or Universities on Wiki are not doing the same thing? Please direct me to a college that is doing it right, without promoting their school. For example, Chapel Hill, they seem to have their entire catalog/facts on their site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caublecl (talk • contribs) 15:44, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

(Third party) Only about a quarter or a third of the references on the UNC pages are actually from the UNC website (oddly enough their Library seems to be the section most in need of external references). As for WP:COI, you might want to add suggestions for the article to the Talk page for the article and I'll take a look.

Also, the article in ncpedia.org about Brevard College is *extremely* good. I think that most of the article (rewritten so as not to be a Copyright infringement) would be wonderful to be part of the wikipedia article. (NCpedia is not a wiki, instead the article author is included, so it is OK)Naraht (talk) 16:09, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

First, that's an astoundingly unprofessional reply to make especially in a public forum where you've already identified yourself and your employer. You've been advised of some of the norms and expectations of this community. You're certainly welcome to question them, challenge them, or even flout them but that might be risky and inadvisable. Flagrantly ignoring or contravening probably won't have your intended effect and would probably lead to you being blocked from editing altogether.

Second, my impression is that very few colleges or universities are making serious attempts to control or substantially edit their articles. As already discussed, that's a violation of our policies and culture and most professionals are happy to abide by them once made aware. Editors who are obviously editing articles in violation of our conflict of interest or neutral point of view policies are usually blocked. There are certainly many editors and edits who slip through and it's definitely my impression that most college and university articles are much more positive and whitewashed than they probably should be. But that's less a function of college and university PR reps editing the articles than many types of editors, especially students and alumni, who have a vested interest in making their college or university look good. So no, I don't think this is a particularly pernicious problem if you limit it to college and university PR employees and your proposed edits are so far out of the norm that they're completely objectionable.

With respect to colleges or universities who are "doing it right," those who are doing it right are those who aren't editing their own article. Toward the middle of this project page is a list of college and university articles that are featured, good, or otherwise high quality so that is a good place to start if you're looking for model articles. ElKevbo (talk) 16:33, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Inflationary effects lacking in Loan Forgiveness discussion requested by Flyte35 and ElKevbo

Please come over to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:College_tuition_in_the_United_States#Inflationary_effects_lacking_in_Loan_Forgiveness_discussion_requested_by_Flyte35 to discuss the recent edit war, as it is regarding the same type of edit as was done just now.71.101.50.196 (talk) 08:23, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Note: I am consolidating discussion of 2 different Wikipedia pages to the talk page of one of them (for simplicity), simply because they involve the same issue; there was an edit was between myself and 1 editor over on the College Tuition in the United States page, and then over on the Higher Ed bubble page, myself and 2 other editors edit-warred. As you are 1 of the 3 editors, I'm acting in good faith and notifying you of the consolidated discussion -even though it will drastically increase the odds that the 3 of you can 'gang up' on me. Note: I did not have to notify you of the other edit war, but I did -even knowing I may get ganged up on by 3 registered editors. Please know that when you remove a truthful, on-topic edit that is *properly sourced*, then it pushes other editors like myself to not want to become registered. So, your actions here are counterproductive, but I will assume good faith: the link in question is right above.71.101.50.196 (talk) 08:32, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Columbia Pacific University

I wonder if by using the word "libelous" in his edit summary Lcarr (remarkably similar to the name of one of the owner/founders Lester Carr) is suggesting legal action? Dougweller (talk) 12:31, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I didn't notice that. I'm not inclined to get spun up about one word in one edit summary but it wouldn't hurt to drop him or her a message introducing or reminding him or her of WP:NLT. ElKevbo (talk) 15:38, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Good idea. In any case if he continues to edit he needs to be reminded of COI as well. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 15:53, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Widener University

Hi ElKevbo,

Thank you for reaching out to me in regards to the edit removal on the Widener University page. I am confused as to why it was deemed inappropriate. Widener University offers both in-person and online courses, the online courses are an additional offering. Since it is an additional offering it has a separate webpage. By including the additional webpage in the encyclopedia post it is only further adding to the viewer's knowledge and providing them with more information on a school they were already searching. Would you mind undoing the edit and allowing the users to view both the ground and online campus?

I appreciate your time and consideration in the matter.

-Brigette — Preceding unsigned comment added by **searchingforthebreeze** (talk • contribs) 00:03, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry but I still don't think that link and others like it are necessary or appropriate. These are encyclopedia articles, not marketing brochures or admissions pamphlets. I recommend raising the issue in the article's Talk page if you'd like to see if other editors agree with you. You might also want to make sure that you're familiar with our policies about external links in articles. ElKevbo (talk) 12:45, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Quest University sexual assault controversy

I restored what I had written about Quest University's sexual-assault controversy before I went to Wikimania ... I would really have preferred that you had discussed the issue with me before you so blithely reverted it. I would have thought that an editor of your caliber would be able to distinguish between BuzzFeed's longform pieces, which we have accepted as reliable sources for other articles, and their many listicle-style pieces, which of course we don't. I would have thought as well that, given the subject of the article, you would be able to realize that such specious editorial reasoning lends credence to charges of institutionalized sexism at Wikipedia. Please consider all this and discuss with me if you still don't think this article constitutes a reliable source (certainly one other local news outlet did). Daniel Case (talk) 16:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I've already posted on the article's Talk page. ElKevbo (talk) 16:11, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Kentucky's flagship university(s)

What would Kentucky's other flagship public university(s) be? In Flagship university, it says "The phrase flagship institution or flagship university may be applied to an individual school or campus within each state system". Additionally, I looked at the page of the state's second largest university, and the only mention of the term is in the history section "Academically, U of L moved closer to parity with the state's flagship University of Kentucky". I don't see how the term doesn't apply solely to UK. Please explain. Thanks. --rogerd (talk) 21:17, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

If you read the rest of that article you'll see that (a) many states have multiple "official" flagships and (b) "flagship" often is an unofficial status. So any edit based solely on the claim that "there can't be more than one flagship" is inherently problematic. If you have another basis for your edit, please make that claim. (In fact, I don't think the phrase "flagship" even appears in the cited source. Further, it looks like it's just an unpublished student-written paper so it could also be challenged on WP:RS grounds.) ElKevbo (talk) 23:03, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

External Links on Monmouth College

Hi ELKevbo, I noticed you have removed my added (Official Hewes Library website) link to the External links list on Monmouth College, though your comment is ambiguous. Rami.shareef (talk) 02:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Check out our policy about external links. ElKevbo (talk) 03:34, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Alumnus

Okay, you may have a point. Still, do we want this guy documented as associated with our school? - Denimadept (talk) 20:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

It's an encyclopedia article, not a promotional brochure, so information that is important should be included without regard to how it affects the subject's reputation. ElKevbo (talk) 20:50, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Wow, that came out of nowhere. It's not important. It's information that's effectively irrelevant. But I'm not interested in warring about it. - Denimadept (talk) 20:56, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Seal Standard

The problem lies in the fact the seal posted on wiki is then populated in searches and facebook places. Most universities keep seals for use on official use. Any suggestion on how to resolve this? Kimmiedeeday (talk) 21:10, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

First, I agree that it's usually not helpful for readers to have the very first image on a college or university article an obscure, rarely used symbol. I argued against this in the past but was in the minority so please let me know if you bring this up in a new discussion.

Offhand, I can think of three possible ways for you to proceed if you'd like to inquire and perhaps change this de facto policy. The most direct place would be to open a discussion on the infobox university template's Talk page. I don't think you'd get much response there, however, since it's probably not watched by many people. A more high profile place to raise this issue is the Talk page of the WikiProject Universities. It's not a very high traffic Talk page but those who watch it are obviously interested in college and university articles. I think that's where the previous discussion(s) took place. A third option would be to file a formal Request for comment and broadly (but neutrally and in appropriate venues e.g., WikiProject Universities) advertise it. That would probably get you input from a larger and more diverse group.

If I remember the previous discussion(s) correctly, the argument that the topmost image in the infobox is picked up by other websites didn't seem to carry any weight and the discussion focused almost exclusively on what is best for Wikipedia readers. In fairness, those who favored using the seal had a good argument that wordmarks and logos change frequently which undermines their usefulness in an encyclopedia and also presents a small practical challenge as we will have to keep changing out those images. There is also some validity in the viewpoint that encyclopedia articles shouldn't focus heavily or at all on institutions' ephemeral marketing and branding efforts. I also think there is a slight undercurrent of resistance to outside organizations trying to impose their policies on this encyclopedia, often without making even cursory attempts to understand how this encyclopedia operates and its community norms. ElKevbo (talk) 00:57, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:SUNY Stony Brook seal.gif

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:SUNY Stony Brook seal.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 18:54, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

November 19 '14

'university at buffalo is the flagship. The College Board and buffalo's own site, are accurate, valid, current sources. The College Board is the one who put together the list of flagship universities in the first place and it lists buffalo's as it for new york. Look at the definition of a flagship University, on Wikipedia even, it says it's determined by the state and college board. It's the largest and biggest public school that has all the big division 1 athletics for the state. It is the most well known and highest research activity. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flagship_university#Education `The College Board, for example, defines flagship universities as the best-known institutions in the state, noting that they were generally the first to be established and are frequently the largest and most selective, as well as the most research-intensive public universities, it is also the states biggest University '. Which buffalo is. It's crazy it keeps getting removed, unless you find something that says it's not or another University in New York is the flagship then buffalo remains to be the flagship. There is even much talk at the state that it's the flagship, it's own website makes the flagship designation. Nothing else in new york comes close and that's backed up by sources, the College Board article was posted this October as well as the universities own website which is run by suny!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bricklethenickler (talk • contribs) 14:01, November 19, 2014‎

Those are reasonable points to raise but they don't justify edit warring, especially when there is already a discussion underway on the article's Talk page. We work by consensus and cooperation, not by who can shout the longest and loudest or be willing to edit war the longest. ElKevbo (talk) 19:37, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

So don't edit it, I presented the facts, did not realize the article had its own talk page fair enough and I apologize for that misunderstanding .

AfD

Hello. I see you've proposed List of human resource management graduate degree programs as an AfD, but I don't see a thread for the AfD discussion. Please advise. —Eustress 19:17, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

It's a proposal for deletion, a way to see if there is unanimous consensus and avoid a full-blown AfD. If anyone objects and removes the template, then it has to go through an AfD (because it's obviously not unanimous!). If you object, go ahead and remove it; it's no big deal. If you do that, please drop me a line here or in the article's Talk to help me understand why you believe the article should remain. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 19:34, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I understand. The page was originally created with the intention of presenting a list of graduate degrees that were essentially the same but with different names (notice that MLHR, MSHRM, MILR, MHRLR, MSHRER, MHRM, MA-HRIR, etc. redirect to this page). Perhaps better to have individual dab pages for each? Just concerned about enwp becoming a branding engine for schools. —Eustress 15:20, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I think we're on the same page. An article on the different graduate degrees in that field, even a list article, would be useful and interesting. But I share your concern about this article being hijacked to act as a promotional listing of specific institutions and that's why I prodded it. I think the article should be dramatically changed but it's such a large change that it's effectively a deletion of the current article and the introduction of a new one using the same name so I would be more comfortable if there were a (brief) process like a prod or AfD to allow others to voice their opinions and concerns beforehand. The prod has been up for six days so it should take effect tomorrow if no one objects and removes it so I think we're in the clear. ElKevbo (talk) 16:08, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Template:Infobox university

Kevbo, did you see this edit: [2]? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:57, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

No, I didn't! Thanks; I've asked him or her to revert the edit and discuss it in Talk. I'd revert it myself but apparently 47,000+ edits doesn't qualify me to edit heavily-used templates... ElKevbo (talk) 23:27, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Andy had reverted without comment. Please ping me if anyone starts a discussion on the template talk page. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:57, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks & Request for feedback

Hi ElKevbo,

I've noticed your edits over the years for pages on universities around the United States (Oregon especially) and I'd just like to thank you for all of your hard work!

You've just made some edits that would make Oregon#Public inconsistent, and has been the subject of some dispute on the talk page. What are your thoughts on the matter? Ckere (talk) 19:06, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome!

I just edited Oregon to remove the unsourced flagship claims. The claims may be accurate or inaccurate but in any case they're unsourced and that is sufficient to remove them right now. I'll make the same point in Talk in just a moment. ElKevbo (talk) 19:23, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

University of Ottawa

What would constitute as a source for such a fact? Would the fact that the website itself is in french be sufficient enough? --CanadianChemEng (talk) 02:40, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

No, CanadianChemEng, that wouldn't seem sufficient to me. You're making a statement about the universities policies or practices so you need a reliable source that explicitly states what you are claiming. ElKevbo (talk) 02:52, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from, however, a simple walk around the campus would prove this. Not sure how something like that would be sited. --CanadianChemEng (talk) 02:58, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Revert of one of my edits

Hi ElKevbo, I couldn't help but notice you have taken a keen interest in removing as much information as possible from the Oregon State University page lately, one of those things being a piece of information that I recently added with a source diff. As you could see from my source, OSU's very own website lists those rankings. Your edit summary was "not authoritative or even credible "rankings". Let me list the problems I have with this - 1) I'm not listing those websites as the source, I'm listing OSU's website as the source. This is about as credible as you can get in terms of WP:RS. 2) These are both .org organizations, they have no commercial incentive to rate one place over another. A google search of online rankings of online schools shows thebestschool.org as the 3rd result. 4) How are you determining what is an "authoritative" source vs. not? Your own personal opinion? Please explain your methodology for determining what is "authoritative" or "credible", since you are proclaiming that these sites are neither, despite the school itself advertising these rankings. 5) US News and World Report doesn't rank entire online programs, they only rank individual degree programs, so those rankings can't be used as a source for how highly ranked an entire online school is or isn't, only individual programs. VegaDark (talk) 20:04, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I'm not interested in "removing as much information as possible from the Oregon State University page" but instead I'm interested in nudging it and its editors in directions that will result in an improved article that better conforms with our policies and standards and is a better resource for readers.

As to the substance of your comment, I'm going to copy your question to the article's Talk page and respond there so other editors who are watching the article can better see this discussion and participate. ElKevbo (talk) 20:48, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Regarding your edit here, did you review the talk page regarding flagship status? I specifically cite two sources that details how a university becomes "selective" or not, one saying by percentage of students admitted (while noting that other metrics may be used), and the other saying higher qualified students. Based on those sources in no way is considering incoming freshman GPA for selectivity original research by my part, I specifically found sources to back that metric up. Additionally, based on your edit summary logic the "sole metric" that UO is more selective in should also be removed. I added both pieces of information, but you only decided to remove the one regarding OSU despite both being an accurately referenced fact. As it stands now, it improperly gives off the impression that UO is the more selective university where it's clear that isn't that case depending on the metric that is used. I suggest you revisit this section so that misleading impression is not given off. VegaDark (talk) 07:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

If there is something wrong with the UO material, feel free to edit or delete it! ElKevbo (talk) 14:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Bo Pelini

added a link pointing to Coach

Social media

added a link pointing to Alone Together

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:47, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Adept moderating of the absurd and persistent Buffalo flagship misinformation campaign. ~dak~ 21:51, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:SUNY Stony Brook seal.gif

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:SUNY Stony Brook seal.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 12:14, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

U VA /Rolling Stone

Hi Elkevbo. A comment at U Va's talk page you may want to weigh in on, in a day or so. Take some time. Breathe. Relax.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 19:33, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Seal dispute from IP users on SBU

Hi ElKevbo, as you have noticed, there is a persistent POV push from unsigned users to remove seal of university from Stony Brook University. This kind of editors are not amenable to conventions and NEVER talks. I think, some kind of protection on the article is required. I am not sure if it is appropriate to post vandal or some kind of warning on those IP users for persistently pushing POV over community norm. – nafSadh did say 07:51, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

It's not just Stony Brook but Buffalo, too. There's also a "new" editor at the SUNY Geneseo article although he or she hasn't made edits related to the infobox. This may be related to a sockpuppet who hounded the Buffalo and SUBY system page for a while before being blocked a couple of weeks ago.

In any case, this isn't worth edit warring about. Post something in Talk to establish a consensus and then you'll be in a much better position. You could try asking administrators to semi-protect the article but I don't know if there are enough obvious problems to convince them to do so.

In the meantime, keep an eye on the university seals in question to ensure they don't get deleted or that you at least save a local copy that you can upload again later. They're probably here under the guise of fair use so if they're not being actively used in one or more articles they're subject to deletion. ElKevbo (talk) 13:33, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Maclean's/uOttawa

Hey! Sorry I was deleting by accident the "research - section" and didn't notice. As for the Maclean's university section within the article in the reputation section - from Maclean's University Guide (own site): "Maclean’s surveys universities with a focus on the undergraduate experience, and an intent to offer an overview of the quality of instruction and services available to students at public universities across the country."

http://www.macleans.ca/education/unirankings/our-18th-annual-rankings/

That part is not up for debate however (unless you have something from Macleans saying otherwise), it's also says that on Maclean's University Guide page on Wikipedia, for more than 10 years probable. Thebeach19 18:29, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

University of Florida in popular culture

I restored the prodded article--many uch articles have been accepted at afd, so it ought to go there. DGG ( talk ) 00:29, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Fine, I'll run it through AfD. But I don't know what "UCH" means so I'd appreciate an explanation. ElKevbo (talk) 00:51, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Could you

take a look at my talk page and see if you can help Lcarr who you just reverted? I'm off to bed and in any case don't think I can offer much. Thanks. No problems if you don't want to. Dougweller (talk) 21:54, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. ElKevbo (talk) 22:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC)