User talk:ElKevbo/Archive 24

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 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.

MasterClass Revisions

Hello, I'm the Director of Communications at MasterClass, an online education company. Because you were involved in the Educational technology page and are involved in education, I'm writing to see if you can please review my proposed content I shared on the Talk page here. I have posted it for general review and am asking you to review it as I have a conflict of interest working for the company. Is this something you could please help me with?

Thank you. BethMasterClass (talk) 22:27, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. ElKevbo (talk) 01:37, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

YOUR MESSAGE BethMasterClass (talk) 16:14, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I really appreciate it. If you can, appreciate you watchlisting the page as well. Thank you

Joining WikiProject Universities?

Hi ElKevbo!

I notice that a lot of your work on Wikipedia relates to higher education, but that you're not currently listed as a participant of WikiProject Universities. Is this intentional, or would you be interested in joining? You can place {{User:UBX/WPUNI}} on your user page, or just add yourself directly here. - Sdkb (talk) 15:37, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lenoir Rhyne University

Please stop vandalising our wiki page.. The guidelines are clear on majors and graduate programs and we adhere to those by wikipedia. So, please stop removing academic details. Those are far more important than who was our president in 1891, who graduated from the university and what sports we play. 69.132.104.25 (talk) 16:42, 8 May 2019 (UTC)Dr. Bjarne Berg, professor[reply]

Please review WP:COI, WP:UNIGUIDE, and WP:NOTDIR. It's most important to note that it's not "your wiki page" but an article in a collaborative encyclopedia project. More importantly, you are strongly discouraged from editing article about topics where you might have a conflict of interest. ElKevbo (talk) 17:14, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Regent University, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Associate (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Typo?

Hello. I took a quick glance at your webpage and noticed that you 'hold a secondary faulty appointment'. I do hope you're able to have it repaired. I understand these things are quite difficult to return to the shop after you've had them for a while. Cheers, BlackcurrantTea (talk) 11:18, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It's still under warranty. :) ElKevbo (talk) 13:10, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 May 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:11, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Northcentral University granted non-profit status by WASC in November 2018.

Go to WASC website and search Northcentral University. Then click on link titled "Structural change action letter, change of ownership November 2018". See section 2 in the last paragraph of page 1 Qcmrwu (talk) 18:24, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That letter says the commission "Approve[s] the proposed Change of Control and Legal Status, through which Northcentral University will change its control to the National University System, and change to non-profit legal status as part of the transaction. Prior to the closing of the transaction, material changes in the proposed terms must be reported immediately to WSCUC to determine if further review or action is necessary [emphasis added]." The parts that I emphasized indicate that the commission will make these changes but had not done so when the letter was written. And the based on the Statement of Accreditation Status for Northcentral University the changes still haven't happened. ElKevbo (talk) 19:03, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What?

You wrote re: article - University of Georgia - "Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. ElKevbo (talk) 10:56, 3 June 2019 (UTC)" I do not perform any "vandalism" or "unconstructive" edits, and do not understand your unfriendly, unhelpful, adamantine, hard-nosed, and obnoxious comment. My edits may depend on other parts of an article, but are supported by citation(s) as part of the article. Apparently you have no life except to sit at a keyboard and be obnoxious and not be helpful in complete opposition to the ideals of wikipedia. It appears you have no ability to direct others except to attempt such through the Internet. Get a real life. If you continue on this path I must request we submit our differences to evaluation of an administrator (if you are one - someone higher up than you) and / or to arbitration. Please respect the talk page guidelines and try to be civil. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 12:25, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again?

You typed, "Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. ElKevbo (talk) 11:53, 3 June 2019 (UTC)" Look up the word, "libel". How am I "disruptive" and how am I one to "vandalize?" You seem to enjoy statements without giving support. Reviewing your CV, sad. Try to speak entirely and directly. I believe a higher authority and / or arbitration is called for. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 12:43, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You changed the university's latin name to "Univershitas Georgiae" and added nonsense to its motto. That's pretty clear vandalism. Clean it up and stop. ElKevbo (talk) 13:19, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you will look at the edits - I neither changed anything, nor added anything. Get your facts straight. Your statement appears to be an example of your ignorance. Also, your arrogance is sadly misplaced. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 14:25, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here is where you mangled the motto and here is where you added profanity to the institution's latin name.
And cut out the personal attacks; they're not productive, they're not welcome, and they're liable to lead to you being blocked if you persist. ElKevbo (talk) 15:05, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you take your own advice re: personal attacks. See, personal attacks. In my view, your unseemly, horrid, unnecessary, and bizarre attacks are so far beyond Wikipedia's standards as to need quashing through a minimum of blocking, if not actionable libel as folks know me by my online name. If you disagree, let's start by taking your behavior to an administrator and see who gets blocked. As to your last attack: (1) I neither intentionally mangled anything (the “mangeling” is nonsensical), nor intentionally used "Univershitas" - all are merely errors, plus (2) Univershitas, regardless, is not a curse. Let me know when you will be willing to have your behavior evaluated by an administrator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quaerens-veritatem (talk • contribs) 02:42, June 4, 2019 (UTC)
Quaerens-veritatem, I suggest you read WP:BOOMERANG and WP:THREAT, because right now your driving yourself to that block.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 16:00, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia

Do you really believe anyone with a modicum of knowledge or intelligence would confuse the University of Georgia (US) with the university in the former state of Georgia - specially after reading just the introductory sentence? Really? The idea is great for useless quibbling.Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 14:12, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do think it's reasonable for readers, particularly those outside of the United States, to think that "University of Georgia" may refer to the country with that name. We have an international audience. ElKevbo (talk) 15:06, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anyone that can read the article's English introduction will know immediately that a U.S. institution is the subject. Any other view assumes gross and unbelievable ignorance.Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 06:49, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
but if someone goes there who has not read the lede it is reasonable to point them to the one that might have looked for.Slatersteven (talk) 12:24, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And it is standard practice. It is needed for access issues- screen readers are cited. It should be the first elements of the page, before any maintenance tags, infobox, or image. As has been done. The University of Georgia (Tbilisi) article could do with references! ClemRutter (talk) 17:42, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

City Vision University Revisions

Hi, I'm the President of City Vision University. We are a small nonprofit university that primarily serves staff at charities that serve the poor. As you can see from the page history, much of the content already on the page was added by our staff. I do not believe that because I am from the school, it should warrant reverting almost all the edits en mass as you just did. Because we are a small niche school, the reality is not a lot of people are adding content to our page other than those that you might consider to have a conflict of interest.

I appreciate the fact that you are investing a lot of effort as a wikipedia editor of colleges and universities. I can see how having clear factual information on schools could greatly benefit many students and help students sift through institutions to identify those providing the most value from those that might be exploitative. I believe that for you as an editor to take a broad brush to a small institution like ours by roll back changes en mass creates social harm, and works against the spirit of the intent of Wikipedia. Your roll back made a lot of the article incorrect and is not helpful.

I'm willing to have more granular dialog on specific changes if you believe that something specific I did violates Wikipedia's standards. For now, I'm reverting all your changes back. The intent is to have a more granular dialog.

I hope that you will cooperate with that approach. I myself am an MIT graduate and co-founded a research group with David D Clark, who is credited by many as one of the top 10 people helped to develop the Internet. I say that not to brag, but to explain that I believe in the values of Wikipedia, but I also will fight endlessly and pursue dispute resolution if you as an editor overstep your authority in ways that both hurt my institution and the common good as I believe you have.

Again, I get that it is very hard for you to edit so many higher education institution pages, and I'm sure it's a thankless job. So I appreciate what you are doing. If you can't be more granular in your edits, I would appreciate you giving more latitude to let us make edits to the page as we have over the past decade. Alsears (talk) 21:24, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Alsears: As the president of the university you absolutely should not be editing the article! Please review our COI guideline and FAQ for organizations. You're more than welcome to request edits in the article's Talk page but you should not be making those edits yourself unless you're sure that they're non-controversial. ElKevbo (talk) 21:41, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@ElKevbo:I get what you are saying if you want to operate like a robot and not use any discretion in interpretation. The reality is that more than 90% of the edits of schools as small as ours are made by staff for those schools. More than 90% of the past edits on our page were made by our staff. Please use a bit of common sense. I will escalate this dispute as necessary. I can't imagine why you would be putting so much effort into this unless you cared about the common good. It is not serving the common good being a Wikipedia bully to a small institution that is essentially serving the Mother Theresa's of the world. If you want to identify specific edits that are controversial, do that, but don't revert the whole thing.Alsears (talk) 22:21, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Give me a few more minutes, please; I'm writing out detailed explanations for all of my edits in the article's Talk page. ElKevbo (talk) 22:23, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify why you removed all the discussion on this talk page? I get that you understand Wikipedia's culture and rules better than I do, and I'm trying to comply. Having said that, all the notices that you've put on our page seem to just be trying to prove a point that you are more "powerful" that I am in the Wikipedia world.

Look man, I gave up a job doing Internet consulting for $200 an hour to train people working with addicts where I took almost a 10-fold pay cut. I'm trying to do the right thing here, and you are wrecking our organization's brand to prove a point. It's like you are driving a Mac Truck over Mother Theresa in your approach. Please tone it down, and try not to retaliate in your response.

If you put COI notices on every small nonprofit organization that had staff update their pages, then they would exist on more than 90% of the nonprofit pages on Wikipedia. It's important to be consistent in enforcing the rules.

Alsears (talk) 22:50, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll drop a note on your Talk page to clarify that we place new messages at the bottom of Talk pages; it's a helpful practice given the rather primitive nature of wiki software and its lack of support for threaded discussions.
I'm sorry but we're not here to help anyone support their "brand." And if we're inconsistent in enforcing our policies around conflicts of interest and paid editing then that's probably because we're a volunteer-run organization with many thousands of volunteers. Those policies have also evolved over time so if you look at practices from even a few years ago you'll probably find a lot of differences in what we do today.
Conflicts of interest and paid edits are massive problems for us and we're probably doing very bad jobs in many articles consistently helping new editors understand our policies. Please understand that many people are trying to actively abuse our project solely for their own commercial gain, often at the expense of any semblance of honesty or our core policies of neutrality.
For what it's worth, I think that many people have had reasonably good experiences when they make well-explained requests and suggestions in article Talk pages. We want our articles to be accurate and up-to-date and we genuinely appreciate any help we can get! But we have to also guard against people abusing this project, often in ways that are subtle. But if you refrain from editing your employer's article and make requests in Talk I think you'll get a fair shake. ElKevbo (talk) 22:58, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I get that you are not here to support any organization's brand, but I'm just asking that you don't wreck it just because I don't understand wikipedia's protocols. The reality is that we have 5 staff. If I didn't make edits to our page, then it would be hopelessly out of date and potential students would be misinformed. Right now, your reverts listed the wrong tuition. My updates previously listed what will be our tuition starting in August.
I also get that you must get treated like crap for trying to defend integrity on wikipedia. Having said that, there is the spirit of Wikipedia's rules and the letter of the law. If you follow the letter only, then our page would only have information that is 10 years out of date. I don't think that's serving the spirit of the rule. I get that I probably made too many edits before that put a positive spin on our school. I didn't realize that violated the rules (probably both spirit and letter), so I'm sorry for that.
What do I need to do to get the notices on our page removed? Since you reverting most everything, I don't see why it would be biased.
Also, I need to make edits so the article is not factually incorrect as it is now. How do I do that? We are not big enough to have a big "public" base that would be doing these edits for us.
I get the fact that your are volunteer run, but I think a part of the principle of being volunteer run is to not put a bunch of effort into something that may cause more harm that good.Alsears (talk) 23:09, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For very straight-forward and uncontroversial updates (e.g., replacing old data with current data and current references), you're probably okay if you make those changes yourself. Some other editors may disagree but if your edits are clearly non-controversial updates to existing information then it seems like unnecessary bureaucracy to make you request someone else do that. If you do that, I strongly recommend making the changes one-at-a-time with very clear edit summaries.
Edits that are more involved should be requested in Talk so that other editors can evaluate the requests and take responsibility for them in the article.
In any case, you should also ensure that you've clearly identified yourself as an editor with a connection to the institution. That will help ensure that you don't run afoul of our policies about paid editing.
Inkian Jason, an editor connected with Full Sail University, has been doing a good job of requesting edits for the institution with which he is connected.
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities is also a really good place to ask questions from experienced editors. It's also a good place to go if you ever post a request for an edit in your university article's Talk page and don't get a timely response; if you look through the archives of that Talk page - they're linked at the top of the page - you can see how others have done that in the past. ElKevbo (talk) 23:21, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ElKevboThanks. What do I need to do to get the notices on our page removed? Would you be OK with just reverting everything to before I made all these edits and then starting from there? The reason why I ask, is all these edits have made the page a lot less accurate. I want to make it accurate, but I want to avoid the problem you mentioned of making too many edits at once. It would be easier to just roll things back before I messed things up and then do a few factual edits from there. Would that work with you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alsears (talk • contribs) 23:25, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
At this point I don't think we'd want to revert back to an older version of the article; other editors would probably view that with suspicion and object. I think we need to work with the article in its current state and move forward from here.
The first template can be remedied by finding and adding sources that are independent of the institution. For many of the most straight-forward data (e.g., enrollment, location, governance), you could suggest IPEDS as displayed in College Navigator; your institution's entry in College Navigator is at https://nces.ed.gov/collegenavigator/?id=457697. Your institution's Carnegie Classifications and related data might also be useful and can be sourced from the Indiana University webpage that hosts that information; your institution's entry there is at http://carnegieclassifications.iu.edu/lookup/view_institution.php?unit_id=457697. U.S. News & World Report is also cited in many article but I recommend against it unless you're specifically citing their rankings because most of their data comes from IPEDS or data provided by your institution so citing them is usually getting it second-hand when the original source is available. More qualitative or contextual information would probably come from media reports or scholarly sources (which I realize is a challenge for many smaller institutions - sorry!).
The second template about being edited by a connected contributor can be removed by another editor after they review the article and its history of edits to ensure that the article is reasonably free to biased edits by connected contributors. I'll try to make time to look at the article and its history to see if I'm comfortable removing that template myself. ElKevbo (talk) 23:37, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I made the most important edits and have tried to remain as factual as possible. When you have time, please review the article and consider removing both templates. Please recognize my point that there really is a legitimate issue with how Wikipedia's policies might create a challenge for small institutions like ours: if staff don't make updates then the page either will be very incomplete or out of date or both. I'm trying to be a good player here. Alsears (talk) 00:18, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@ElKevbo:Please let me know if you have any feedback after reviewing my edits. As I mentioned, I would like to do what I can to get the templates removed a soon as possible, so let me know if there are any other edits needed to do that.Alsears (talk) 19:36, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit on Bryant & Stratton College

Dear User:ElKevbo, I don't know why you went against me on the article's talk page as I had agreed before to add the terrorist (but only in the alumni list - just as you did eventually, not in the lead etc. as the other user suggested...). Anyway, I want to thank you that you did so in a reasonable manner and with proper referencing.2A02:1205:5013:CCA0:35B1:837:1F23:65EB (talk) 06:50, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If there were a medal of honor for Wikipedia, you would get it

Considering that you have a real job (and important one) outside of Wikipedia, you are a phenomenon. Thank you for all the sage advice.

The Barnstar of Diligence
message CollegeMeltdown (talk) 20:33, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
message CollegeMeltdown (talk) 20:33, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Barnstar of Integrity
message CollegeMeltdown (talk) 20:33, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CollegeMeltdown (talk) 20:33, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]


STOP Unnecessary Reverts

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. (User talk:ssg2442) 20:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Universities That Offer a Degree in Real Estate

I looked through every accredited college in the U.S. and picked out the ones offering real estate programs. I think it would be a useful source for the Graduate real estate education article. Could you work with me to develop a version that is not considered spam? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.122.74.177 (talk) 13:34, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's going to be very difficult to add your own website to any Wikipedia article and not have other editors consider it spam or unwelcome promotion. This may be a good place to ask about this and get opinions and advice from other editors. ElKevbo (talk) 17:38, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 19

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Albany State University, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Darton College (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 14:16, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic International University

Interesting recent edits here. Drmies (talk) 01:28, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Harvard

Hi ElKevbo,

Deleted Portion: The university was often cited as one of the world's top tertiary institutions until the rise of Stanford University.[11][12][13][14] As a result of the 21st century, Stanford has taken Harvard's spot as America's "dream college" and become America’s “it” school by measures that Harvard once dominated.[15][16]

Thanks for helping out on this issue. While I do agree that this portion is unnecessary in the lead, it should definitely be placed in the article, perhaps as its own section. There has been a definitive shift in 21st century where Stanford is being seen as the new Harvard. People need to know this. I chose it to go in the lead in order to replace the sentence "The university is often cited as the world's top university by most publishers.[11][12][13][14]", which is blatantly false and not supported by the sources. As such, we should replace this phrase with a more qualified, less bias version that Harvard does often rank in the top 5 but not always first. Runner5a76 (talk) 15:26, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Runner5a76: I agree that the information about Harvard's subtle shift down in some rankings may be suitable for later in the article; however, I caution against focusing too much on another university that is not the topic of this article or making too much of a recent phenomenon that is relatively minor especially when weighed against the entirety of this institution's history.
I also agree that the "is cited as the world's top university" information doesn't seem to belong in the lede. It may not be true anymore - which could be remedied simply by changing it to the past tense and placing some additional context - but it's also unnecessary given that the lede already has a very well-supported sentence that summarizes the institution's prestige. ElKevbo (talk) 18:06, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The June 2019 Signpost is out!

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:52, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail

Hello, ElKevbo. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.AbigailReed (talk) 19:34, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of coffee for you!

Thanks for your help! Dawsoncc (talk) 21:08, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How to deal with enrollment numbers

Ok, here's a question for you as our resident higher education expert. I'm wanting to make sure enrollment statistics are comparable across school pages in Missouri. I often see the Missouri Department of Higher Education report "Full-time equivalent (FTE)" enrollment statistics which differ significantly from "headcount" numbers usually touted by the institutions. My gut tells me that these FTE figures are more reliable for comparing enrollment, but I hesitate to apply this standard to all the school articles I edit in Missouri because it looks like most school articles nationwide unquestioningly use whatever enrollment numbers are reported on the school's webpage. Is there a standard for this somewhere? Do you have a recommendation? Thanks. Grey Wanderer (talk) 20:36, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's a great question and I don't recall if we've ever clearly settled on one as the standard in articles or just infoboxes. I imagine that many editors aren't even aware of the two different ways of counting students so we don't even have the numbers specified in most articles which is very confusing and bad all around. I see that the question was asked in 2015 in the archives for the relevant infobox but it wasn't answered so I've opened another discussion. At a minimum, we should be clearly specifying whether we're using headcount or FTE any time we present enrollment numbers. ElKevbo (talk) 21:06, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Over on secondary schools, I've been pushing to use NCES as the standard source for enrollment, as they are independent, undeniably accurate (federal money is distributed based on them. Inaccuracies will get called out and fixed quickly.), and apply the same methodology across all 50 states. They have figures for post secondary schools, but I don't think there is quite as complete of coverage. If a secondary school accepts any federal assistance at all, even just money for lunch programs, they must submit data to NCES. John from Idegon (talk) 21:52, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The numbers that NCES has are all self-reported from the institution so they're not necessarily more accurate than what institutions report in other venues e.g., Common Data Set. They do collect data from colleges and universities in the Integrated Post-Secondary Education Data System (IPEDS). Regardless of the source that we use we still need to specify whether the numbers are headcount or FTE. ElKevbo (talk) 22:29, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, and raise you one. I'd make a definite statement that FTE is preferred. John from Idegon (talk) 22:57, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal on Pearl River, New York

Out of curiosity, how did you determine that User:Bigdaddyjboi was a "known vandal", since their contributions page only shows a few edits over 2 days? Did you use a tool that revealed them as a sock puppet? -- Fyrael (talk) 21:09, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No fancy tools or forbidden knowledge, just noting the nature of his or her edits. ElKevbo (talk) 21:13, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 July 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:17, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

York University

I would appreciate it if you check the sources that I have researched to contribute to this article before you eliminate the additions that I have made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by QQQspadesQQQ (talk • contribs) 21:53, August 1, 2019 (UTC)

Please review WP:NOTNEWS and WP:DUE as my objection is not to the sources you have cited but the lasting importance of the information you added. I also object to you removing an entire section of the article without any discussion or justification. ElKevbo (talk) 13:18, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The section removed on the Markham campus is because there is no Markham campus at York University. The proposed campus has been canceled and it is not being built. The Markham campus section contains a number of citations to news articles. This does not seem to fit with the goal of the article overall. — Preceding unsigned comment added by QQQspadesQQQ (talk • contribs) 09:30, August 2, 2019 (UTC)
Then I recommend moving the material to the history section (and likely trimming it some, too) as it's still relevant information for the history of the institution.
And please remember to sign your contributions to Talk pages. (You just have to type four tildes at the end of your post: ~~~~. ElKevbo (talk) 13:41, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your deletion

You keep on deleting the name of the dean of the law school from Brooklyn Law School. Saying it is not "necessary." Nothing is necessary. Not even the article. It is, however, appropriate. If you think not - support that view. Otherwise, please stop your deletions.

Obviously, Harvard Law School - for example - reflects its dean. It also has a far more robust lede. Many law school ledes reflect for example notable alumni. And employment statistics. Yet you have deleted almost all of the Brooklyn Law lede of parallel information. Despite wp:lede. Why??? --2604:2000:E010:1100:ECC1:4C41:EA3C:A3EB (talk) 00:46, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not necessary or helpful in most cases to include the name of the institution's leader in the lede for most articles. The infobox should be up-to-date, of course, and there may be another section or two where this information is appropriate e.g., "Organization," "Notable alumni." But simply naming the leader in the opening paragraphs is rarely helpful or informative for readers. ElKevbo (talk) 00:59, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So - you are going to delete it from Harvard Law School? Yes, otherstuffexists is a valid complaint when it is buttressed by other arguments - and my other argument is that the leader of an organization, whether a law school or college or country, is indeed important. That's why it is also in the infobox. As you know, both the lead and the infobox are duplicative of what is in the text. Both are meant to capture items of importance in the body. You don't go ahead and delete from teh lede - or should not - whatever happens to be in the infobox. If you did, you would delete - for an individual, all the birthdates that are in the lede. In the very first sentence of the lede in fact.
It is odd that you keep on coming back to "what is necessary". That is non-sensical. The article itself is not necessary. Every addition you have ever made to wikipedia is not necessary. It is only helpful, at best. And here it is helpful. The fact that it is in the infobox, and in the Harvard Law article, militate for it. And your "not necessary" edit summary show the flaw in your thinking in your deletion.
And when you call sourced material you delete (it can be sourced in the body) unsourced, that is not helpful.
And when you call a deletion of content a "simplification" that smacks of (no doubt unintentional) concealment.
Plus - you have not responded to the deletion of the majority of the lede of that school. What is that all about. I would like to restore it or have it restored. Here is what it looked like in an earlier time. Consistent with other law schools like Harvard. 2604:2000:E010:1100:ECC1:4C41:EA3C:A3EB (talk) 01:20, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article on Carleton College

Hi: you recently reverted a change I made to the logo of the article on Carleton College. I agreed with you 100% that the college can't dictate what the article should or shouldn't be. I'm simply trying to modernize the web page: that seal that's on the page now is out of date. The college rebranded a few years ago, and that seal is no longer the current way that the college identifies itself. Does that seem reasonable, or do you have other objections? WorldsApart (talk) 13:30, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand; the seal in the current article matches the one shown on the college's website. ElKevbo (talk) 14:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but the seal is not the logo of the school. The seal is only used for stamping diplomas, and that sort of thing. Maybe that's what we're really debating: it seems to me that the main image shown on the page should be the school's public logo, not an obscure imprint used for official documents. Do you feel otherwise? WorldsApart (talk) 15:04, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you but the prevailing consensus does not; more editors believe the seal is a critical identifier that belongs at the top of the infobox. Template Talk:Infobox university should have several threads about this in its archives and it would be the best place to raise this issue again if you'd like to do so. ElKevbo (talk) 15:07, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks for pointing me to that archive: I was unaware of it. I disagree with their point, and might at least contact the editor. On the other hand, I may give up and move on. We'll see. WorldsApart (talk) 15:11, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Spencer: one of UVA's most prominent alumni ever?

Hello ElKevbo! As a regular contributor to University of Virginia topics I encourage you to evaluate and comment on this discussion. I appreciate your consideration of the matter! Omnibus (talk) 16:59, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 9

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Paul Smith's College, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Associate (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:06, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

Hi, the references are needed at Sumner College as general references showing the college exists and has been reported in reliable sources. Removing all references from an article is disruptive, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 17:57, 13 August 2019 (UTC) Also, general references means references without citations Atlantic306 (talk) 17:58, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What? No, that's not what references are! References are the materials from which we drew the material in the article. If nothing in the article was drawn from a document, it's not a reference. These are merely external links and we are very, very conservative in adding them to articles - and we almost always do so in the "External links" section.
I've opened a discussion in the article's Talk page; I expect you to participate as you've already been edit-warring over this. ElKevbo (talk) 18:09, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What information in the article refers to those documents? ElKevbo (talk) 18:17, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual College Counselor

I keep having material that I wrote removed. I have taken out the parts of the article that sound like a pitch. I had initially copied and pasted from the platform press release. This is an important subject in college admissions and should be addressed. Please let me know how to resolve this. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CollegeAdmissionsExpert (talk • contribs) 21:20, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@CollegeAdmissionsExpert: Do you have a connection to MyKlovr? ElKevbo (talk) 00:38, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am an unpaid advisor. I work with several organizations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CollegeAdmissionsExpert (talk • contribs) 11:33, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You should probably review our conflict of interest guideline; it has helpful advice for situations like this. In general, it's probably best that you make suggestions and requests to edit the article(s) in Talk to avoid any suggestion or appearance of impropriety. ElKevbo (talk) 16:14, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all of your help. I will make changes and request edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CollegeAdmissionsExpert (talk • contribs) 13:19, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Central Carolina Technical College wiki content edits

Hello ElKevbo,

I work in the public relation department of Central Carolina Technical College. I see a lot(overwhelming amount) of guidelines on what I can or possibly should avoid posting for our Wikipedia page. If there a beginner's guide to adding a college to Wikipedia that could help me with what kind of content specifically I can add to give details without sounding like I am selling something? Thank you in advance to you or anyone else with suggestions or links I can read.

-Mark — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark.duffie (talk • contribs) 18:32, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So deleting links to Mayo Clinic, WebMD, National Institutes of Health which are all peer reviewed Science and Medicine in favor of "Quack watch" done by a Journalism student?

I am a retired and disabled biomedical engineer that has worked in medicine for 44 years and I attempted to add some what I thought were "Peer Reviewed" Medical and Science Links from Mayo Clinic, National Institutes of Health, WebMD, and others that you keep replacing with "Quackwatch" links done by Journalism Students under the direction of a "Psychiatrist" who has no training what so ever in treating something like hypertension in an airline pilot who may fly to a country where a drug like an ACE inhibitor is not available. I personally have almost died three times from Bad Blood pressure Prescriptions that now are listed as known carcinogens, and now known to be toxic to organs courtesy of MD's. I would suggest you leave editing pages about the medical profession to very experienced professionals who are from all types of medicine, not just Psychiatry, and not just MD's from the US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wmwmurray (talk • contribs) 04:03, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, a retired engineer is threatening me with the might of the US government? Doug Weller talk 15:15, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ElKevbo, did this editor send you an email? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:42, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. ElKevbo (talk) 16:10, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 August 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:41, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 28

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Ana G. Méndez University (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to San Juan
United States University (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to New York

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:25, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 September 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:06, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thailand No Child Left Behinds Education Policy

The Number of Thai Poor Children that was left behind when His Excellency Mr.Sukavich Rangsitpol took office as Minister of Education in Thailand ,It was the year 1995.It has only been three year after Black May (1992) There were not enough schools for 700000 children between the ages of 3 and 5 years (Early Childhood Education)

There were not enough Primary Schools for 600,000 children between age 6and11years old .

There were not enough Secondary Schools for 3 millions children aged between 12 and 14 years

There were not enough High Schools for 1,000,000 children between aged 15 and 17

There are 3,000,000 children age 15-17 In 1995(The result of Baby Boom for more than 30 years . The Ministry of Education in 1995 have only Schools available for only 2,000,000.

Before 1997 The Ministry of Education has left around 1,000,000 Children age between 12-14 behind each year.

1,000,000 children was not left behind ,because he established schools for them.

The total of 3,500,000 children age between 15-17 but there are only 900,000 that would be accepted. In 1995 When His Excellency Mr.Sukavich Rangsitpol became Education Minister there were more than two millions children age between 15-17 that was left behind180.183.138.62 (talk) 10:26, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/919244751 Could you please help Correcting the article you are welcome to do anything.English is not my language this is the best I could do 180.183.138.62 (talk) 10:31, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia State University

Hey, ElKevbo. Could you specifically cite how the "The Signal" image on the Georgia State University page violates Wikipedia's non-free content criteria policy? I think an image aesthetically improves that section of the article and I'd like to include it.TBPJMRamirez (talk) 14:22, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TBPJMRamirez: These 10 criteria should be helpful. ElKevbo (talk) 14:31, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - which of those criteria does it violate?TBPJMRamirez (talk) 14:42, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." It's particularly important to note that the topic of the article in the university, not the student newspaper. It's also not a well-known or especially descriptive logo. So including it doesn't add to readers' understanding of the article topic. ElKevbo (talk) 15:36, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The newspaper is obviously relevant to the topic of the article - a broad summary of the university and its components. The newspaper is a major component of the university. By your standard, you could delete nearly every picture in every article. And what are you talking about, it isn't a descriptive logo? It has a caption explaining the image right below it. You're applying an especially narrow, arbitrary standard here.TBPJMRamirez (talk) 16:16, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't dispute that the newspaper is something we should mention in this article. The question on the table is whether we need to include its copyrighted logo. We make minimal use of copyrighted material in Wikipedia to keep the entire project freely available for others to use and reuse. For copyrighted material, the question isn't "is it nice to have" but the much more narrow question of "is it necessary" and this specific image doesn't seem to be necessary in this article; it's not necessary to identify the topic of discussion, it's not so well known that it helps readers recognize the topic of discussion, and the image itself isn't discussed in the article. ElKevbo (talk) 16:20, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I suppose. You make a much better argument here than the "unnecessary" you originally wrote as your rationale for deleting the image. The virtue of conciseness has its limits.TBPJMRamirez (talk) 16:33, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Furman University reversal

You have reverted ALL my work on this article. Everything I have added has been sourced. I have taken away notable alumni that were not that notable and added those that are more notable. All schools talk about their ranking in the upper section of their article so I do not think that adding that to this article, which lacked that on their upper section, is advertising.

If you think that my edits could be reworded or better sources added please point it out but please do not reverse all the work I have done in this article because you feel like and have your own opinions about it.00:50, 21 October 2019 (UTC)RobertM87 (talk)

@RobertM87: Please review our policies and practices around edit warring and the "bold, revert, discuss" cycle. In a nutshell, it's typically considered rude and disruptive to revert another editor's revert of your own edits. Instead, the preferred course of action is to open discussion in the article's Talk page. ElKevbo (talk) 03:38, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's also a good idea to make edits to one-section-at-a-time and use clear edit summaries. That makes it a lot easier for other editors to understand what you're doing, know why you're doing it, and object to specific edits without spending a lot of time separating those edits from others. ElKevbo (talk) 03:49, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because some of the rankings are not recent is that the sentence "Over time, Furman has also been mentioned in other specialized lists such as" was put at the beginning. Some rankings get discontinued after a while for various reasons but that does not make the ranking or the report less legitimate. Obviously if you change the wording such as the sentence "Over time..." the information presented can sound less relevant. Re-wording is something that can be used by somebody such as yourself that perhaps comes into Wikipedia with an agenda to minimize or downgrade the achievements of an institution perhaps to make other institutions look better (your Alma matter perhaps or the institutions that fund your research?)

Regarding the "unnecessary words" that added the schools above which or along with Furman was ranked, I think its relevant in some cases to point out which schools competed in the ranking. When a small liberal arts schools competes in a ranking/report with big ivy league research universities is relevant to point that out since most rankings are usually divided between national research universities and liberal arts universities, you know that but of course you didnt come to the article of my alma matter to do us any favors.

The first sentence of the rankings section of your Alma matter Indiana University reads "The Academic Ranking of World Universities ranked IU Bloomington 101–150 in the world and 49–60 nationally in 2017. The institution was ranked alongside Brown University and above schools like Dartmouth College, Georgetown University and University of Notre Dame". I dont see you editing that due to "unnecessary words"

I actually dont have more time to deal with stubborn agenda driven people like you. So either you stop changing the wording so you can delete rankings out of this article or I will report youRobertM87 (talk) 12:58, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's very unproductive to threaten other editors with "do it my way or I'll report you." It's much better to open a discussion in the article's Talk page. I'll help out with that. ElKevbo (talk) 13:51, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I like your short responses and your lecturing tone. Its kind of like a semi bullying tactic used perhaps due to an incorrect judgement of your target. My username makes you believe perhaps that my age is lower than yours when its not and my little number of contributions on my wikipedia username makes you think Im new to editing. You have been reported you "big college expert".RobertM87 (talk) 14:05, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Official Notification

Per the rules, Notification given to ElKevbo that you are being discussed in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents Ballastrae (talk) 06:04, 30 October 2019 (UTC) Ballastrae (talk) 06:05, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Learning the Rules!

Hi Kevin

I want to thank you for your feedback on wikipedia. I am new to wikipedia, as you can tell, and the page that I put together for Paier College of Art was my first attempt at writing a wikipedia page. I was/am unfamiliar with the rules and I noticed that you have taken the page back to square 1 because of my error. I'd like to give it another shot! I understand that one of the issues was that content was not paraphrased as opposed to quoted and that images can't come from online. If the page is in reference to a college/university, is it still not allowed to use an online image by that college/university for that college/university on the wikipedia page that references that institution? I hope to edit the page that I put together so that it is compliant with the site's expectations. I appreciate any and all feedback.

I have gone back to the page that I created and made substantial changes to the wording and I have also removed the photos of the campus due to wikipedia's copyright rules. I hope that these improvements are sufficient to keep the current page up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abezubarev (talk • contribs) 22:29, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks again.

Warmly,

Abezubarev (talk) 21:45, 30 October 2019 (UTC)Abezubarev[reply]

@Abezubarev: Thanks for asking and welcome aboard!
The best place to start learning about Wikipedia is probably this quick overview of our 5 pillars. If you're planning to edit an article about a college or university, it might also be helpful to take a look at our advice about college and university articles. It's also very helpful if you write good edit summaries when you make an edit to an article as that helps other editors understand what you did and why. And if you're editing an article about a subject with which you have a significant connection then you should keep in mind that you might have a conflict of interest and it might be best to request others make edits to the article by posting requests and suggestions in the article's Talk page.
Finally, please be bold in making edits! But if someone objects to an edit or raises a question, please slow down and open a discussion with him or her to resolve the issue.
Have fun and let me know if you have other questions or need any help! ElKevbo (talk) 00:08, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 October 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:11, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Boyce

@ElKevbo:

I would appreciate your review and input on the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Boyce page. Boyce is newly appointed Chancellor at the University of Mississippi and a new page has been created. I do feel that it lacks a neutral viewpoint, but as a representative of the university, I would appreciate your thoughts.

--RyanWhittington (talk) 13:30, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The university's board of trustees have made a huge mess and that's so clear to everyone that I don't think a neutral article will be one that the institution can be proud of. But I removed some original research from the article and toned down some POV that I could discern. If you have specific concerns or suggestions, please post them in the article's Talk page! ElKevbo (talk) 14:36, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I threw the article together in a hurry; thanks for your efforts to improve it, ElKevbo, you've made it much better.Jacona (talk) 15:04, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Universidad del Sagrado Corazón

Hi. Regarding universities and colleges in Puerto Rico. Universidad del Sagrado Corazón you added U.S. after San Juan but that is incorrect. Please note that Puerto Rico is not "in" the United States. Please see some of the articles regarding this. see Commonwealth (U.S. insular area) Puerto Rico is not "in" the US. It is instead a US territory which is legally a separate domain under the control of the US congress. According to the United States Supreme Court: Puerto Rico belongs to but is not part of the United States. You may read more here: [1]--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 02:55, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mercy11 has opened a discussion elsewhere so let's keep the discussion centralized there, please. ElKevbo (talk) 12:49, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ [1]

Question re: data

Looked at your worksheet in the Google Sheet tracking your work and two questions: 1) why is longitude latitude locator for the university incorrect. See for example: University of Puerto Rico-Humacao. 2) Where did the data come? The Google sheet says "IPEDS" but IPEDS doesn't list information about Puerto Rico. It doesn't have P.R. in its drop down list of states, because PR is not a state. I'm just curious because I didn't find PR there yet the google sheet says that data (with incorrect lat and long) came from IPEDS. It's a helpful list in some ways but as far as PR I don't think I can trust the long lat. It's true I only checked one (Humacao) but did end up wasting a lot of time fixing it, once I found it was not correct.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 15:06, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea where the longitude and latitude data originally came from. Whatever is in my Google Sheet is what was found in IPEDS a couple of years ago (at some point I'll have to grab a recent data dump and sync it up with what I already have). To the best of my knowledge, the vast majority of the information in IPEDS is self-reported by the institutions in a series of annual surveys. I don't know if other data are merged in from other sources. If you dig around on the NCES website you should find some definitions of all of the data elements in IPEDS with source information. I also don't know if the geographical data in Wikipedia articles or Wikidata was taken from IPEDS; editors may have used some other source entirely.
Puerto Rican institutions, at least those that receive federal financial aid, are included in IPEDS. The easiest way to view some of the most commonly-used data is by looking up an institution in College Navigator. There is a listing of states and territories on that website; all of the states are listed first and then the territories so Puerto Rico is near the bottom of the list (there has to be some kind of cruel symbolism there, right?). ElKevbo (talk) 15:33, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nah. It's not cruel. We're okay. Estamos Bien. I must have done something wrong because the longitude latitude seems correct now on the Humacao university. Thanks for the information.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 16:05, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, Nov. 2020 PR will vote "yes" or "no" on Statehood. We can only hope so that everything fits nicely into databases. LOL.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 16:30, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New York Academy of Art page

I saw you removed the changes I made to the New York Academy of Art's page where I capitalized the word "Academy". You said not to captalize common nouns, however it's a proper noun as that is the name of the school. You can see they also capitalize it when referring to the school as just "Academy" on their website too. Please can you reverse the changes you made? Thank you for your consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ameliasmith92 (talk • contribs) 00:44, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"New York Academy of Art" is a proper noun; "academy" is a common noun. Our Manual of Style is clear on this issue: "Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is conventionally capitalized; only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia." ElKevbo (talk) 01:44, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 21

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited University of Maine at Farmington, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Thomas Kane (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:26, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pepperdine Caruso

Sorry if I jumped the gun on changing the name of Pepperdine's law school. I noticed that someone recently moved Pepperdine University School of Law to Pepperdine University Rick J. Caruso School of Law, so I thought I would make the corresponding change on the university's page for the sake of consistency. Swper (talk) 19:12, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! I moved the law school back to its current name. (It's odd that the renaming has been announced but only in vague terms with no date for the change.) ElKevbo (talk) 23:48, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

St. Norbert College revert

Facepalm That was my bad. For some reason I didn't see the addition of the source at the bottom. I think the page preview pushed it to the next line and I must have missed it. Thanks for catching it! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:08, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! ElKevbo (talk) 19:16, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 29 November 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:23, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 3

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Valencia College, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Winter Park (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:09, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]


December 2019

I don't think that I have violates any rules of Wikipedia. I have just added an external link to understand the topic more comfortably. Could you please revert back the changes you have made to the page. if you really think that I violate the rule then I apologies for that. Thank you. --Arif James (talk) 12:56, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 20

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gardner–Webb University, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Atomic Energy Commission (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:14, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User ElKevbo added incorrect information to the wiki page for Flashpoint Chicago

This user has inaccurately changed the accreditation status of Flashpoint Chicago to a for-profit college. If the user makes these changes again, it will be considered an act of vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lissette Edcura (talk • contribs) 19:25, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The only source that has been provided says the institution is for-profit. If you have sources that say otherwise, please provide them in the Talk section of the article that has been open for over a month. ElKevbo (talk) 19:32, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question about acceptable ref sources.

Is the Internet Movie Database an acceptable source? What about the Wiki celebrity pictures page?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.253.160.38 (talk) 02:35, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that IMDB is typically counted as a reliable source. And I'm not sure what you mean by the "Wiki celebrity pictures page;" can you please link to it or describe it?
Our policy on reliable sources might be a helpful resource. ElKevbo (talk) 02:51, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 December 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:37, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, ElKevbo. Since you've worked on Bank Street College of Education and know your way around university articles really well, I'd greatly appreciate your help on a question I raised over on that article's talk page: Which logo(s) to include in infobox?

I'm a COI editor in this specific case, and I respect your time as a volunteer editor, so please receive this as a warm invitation rather than as a pushy demand.

Thank you! -- DanielKlotz (talk · contribs) 17:22, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My stunt/pilot/producer beau

Hi, I’m Donna. GTA’s girlfriend. And Oh, BTW - you’ve mischaracterized him by referring to him by using his full name here. I posted it myself some time way back at all his Alma Mater pages (Missuslulu). So sorry I’m not up on your fanboy rules here at Wikipedia. But, everybody I know in the entertainment biz, all know Wikipedia was overrun by trolls and nobody considers Wikipedia itself to be a good source of any information about any subject. Wikipedia is largely fake news. Anyway, you evidently ordered me blocked for daring to try to chime in with and correct you. Not only is he a famous stuntman, but formerly with NASA as a space shuttle astronaut candidate, prior to following his Uber famous cousin RDJ, into show biz. Ever heard of a little show called Walker Texas Ranger? Yep. He also doubled Chuck Norris every episode. Well another little update, his press tour for Doolittle is doing fine and GTA recently produced me in a new project too. He’s also executive producer of Tomorrow’s World. I see little FieldMarine reached out to all his Wiki cyber friends to help quell his tantrum. With over a dozen reverts FieldMarine made (no blocking him for edit warring though) and his temper tantrum over my stunt/producer beau - must have been boiling over. Can you remove the article about me from Wikipedia. My page is also factually full of shit like most of my famous friends pages. (BTW I was on a little non noteworthy show called Baywatch and my ex is in a relatively unknown band called Motley Crue). On the other hand don’t even worry about it. Word is Wikipedia is financially insolvent and nearly defunct, so playtime in your parents basements will be over here soon enough. As I mentioned no one considers your Wikipedia playground, or any of you trolls, notable or noteworthy and really nobody ever did since its inception. Now try to fool around with RDJ, his fam and friends a bit more, & have fun doing so children!

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ElKevbo/Archive_24&oldid=1045509359"