User talk:ElKevbo/Archive 4

George Bush GAR

If you look about mid-way through the GAR (it's in the archives), the nominator withdrew his/her nomination. That is where I got my speedy keep from. I meant to close it sooner, but I really haven't been here a while. Diez2 16:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

But others had already supported the GAR and if GAR is analogous to AFD then the GAR can not be withdrawn at that point. It's a good policy and I don't think it should have been closed in that manner (I would have been perfectly happy with a "Keep" closure as that seemed to be pretty close to consensus). --ElKevbo 16:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Does it matter?

Does this really matter? The result was that the article was kept as a GA. And yes, if a nomination is withdrawn, a new nomination must be given, according to AFD standards and practices. The trouble is that others kept on supporting a "keep" consensus when indeed the nomination had been withdrawn. I just was really late in closing it.Diez2 01:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Coffin

I was not advertising on the Coffins page, and since you're an avowed evolutionary atheist, I wonder why you think you're the GOD of Wikipedia? The information I provided did NOT mention any manufacturer, but DID mention a specific firm name because it would have been useless to say that "once upon a time a funeral home in a faraway state south of Pennsylvania..." Naming the firm that departs from a normal regional practice is no different than stating that Americans call coffins caskets. I suppose such a statement by anyone other than yourself would constitute advertsing for the United States.

At any rate, my post about the firm in South Carolina is completely valid, and is in no way meant to attract business to the firm. It is posted for the information of the reader only, and points out the fact that regional variations in the manufacturing of American caskets are not always observed, and this firm is a prime example.

As to my editing the page to point this out, there is nothing wrong with it, and I'll keep putting it up as often as you insist on taking it down. I guess that's the inherent beauty AND disgusting feature of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swc789rjp (talk • contribs) 12:11, March 8, 2007

I tend to agree with Maustrauser's removal of your contribution to the Coffin article. It does appear at first glance to be rather odd and advertisement-like. It might help us if you could cite some reliable sources that support your assertions.

I also take issue with your insistence that you will continue to replace the material after it has been removed. That's not how we work here and you're likely to get yourself blocked in short order if you continue along that path. Please discuss your additions on the appropriate Talk pages and I'm sure we can come to a mutually agreeable compromise.

Finally, please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) when you post on Talk pages. --ElKevbo 17:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I am most familiar with the "vandalism" guidelines for Wiki, and am absolutely NOT guilty of such, no matter how many times I'm "warned" of such behavior. Since you seem so sure that my information constitutes "advertising", why don't YOU provide reliable data that confirms YOUR assertion? Advertising is use of some form of media to obtain business from the viewer of said media. My posting does nothing of the sort, unless you believe that I'm convinced that parlaying the information that I did will in short order convince an entire continent of readers to make plans to employ a firm in SC to handle their burial because of the information posted on WIKI. Nonsense. What a ridiculous assertion. In the field of funeral service, a lot of people have no clue what types of caskets are used in various parts of the U.S., and my post simply made that clear. Not mentioning the firm's name would have left the scope of the information bare, and as much as you might dislike it, it is NOT politically incorrect to establish the name of a business when relating the practices of said business. Can you imagine Dateline NBC running a story on, say, a scandal involving an oil-change firm if the firm in question were never named in the story? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swc789rjp (talk • contribs) 12:47, March 8, 2007

Okay, not advertisement. But still unsourced. How about placing your recommended edits on the articles' Talk pages first since other editors obviously object to them? Work it out there instead of belligerently adding the material and re-adding it when someone removes it, please.

Please (a) tone down your aggressiveness as it's unnecessary and unwelcome and (b) sign your posts on Talk pages. --ElKevbo 17:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

May the avowed evolutionary atheist (I like that title) pop in and suggest that if this information is essential regarding cultural differences across the US then a subsection is created that outlines these differences and mentions a range of different casket shapes (not just the company being highlighted's offering) and provide citatations for this information. It would be much more encyclopaedic. Maustrauser 21:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Link Spam on Social Networks

Sr. El Kevbo,

There is chronic link spam on the Social Networks article. Thank you for reverting today's. What do you think of a more general solution of putting in a box at the top that points people to the social networking software article -- which is a better place for an announcement of the many networking programs that are coming out. In some ways, it's offloading the problem which is not a disaster. But it is also direct folks to where there links more properly belong. Bellagio99 23:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I would think that link spam is unwelcome no matter what article to which it is added. I'm sure that all of the articles related to this topic are magnets for spam and we'll just need to keep our eye on them and keep fighting the good fight. If it ever gets too bad, we can always request a temporary semi-protection to gain a brief respite. --ElKevbo 03:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear ElKevbo,

Yet one article's link spam might be another article's useful info. In this case, the social networking software article might benefit from an accreted list of such software which software folks are now (attempting) to put on the main social networks page. Unless you or others object strongly (I am going to sign off soon and see if there are more comments), I would like to experiment with putting a box near the top of the social networks page directing people to the software page. But I don't know how to do this. I can put the [] on each side, but centering, boxing, etc. are beyond my Wiki ken at the moment. I can't believe that there is no Wikipedia for Dummies. Could you help with the formatting if I write the text, or just guide me?

Bellagio99 03:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd recommend you place such a note in an HTML comment in the "External links" section. That would be visible to editors who are trying to add new links but it wouldn't be visible to the casual reader. If you look in articles, you'll see those kinds of notes to editors in a lot of places as it's relatively common. Try it and see if it works. And let me know if you need help! --ElKevbo 04:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. I will, but not tonight. Tomorrow is another day, and I have miles to go before I finish proofreading an article for a journal. Bellagio99 04:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Let me know if I can help! I've got to spend time this weekend on my own writing and research so I empathize with your need to prioritize your time. --ElKevbo 04:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks El Kevbo for the help offer and general advice. I just did the edit myself, and it looks pretty good. Couldn't figure out how to box it, though, to make it look more authoritative;-) If you have a chance, please take a look at the top of Social Network External Links -- and give me feedback and tips for the future. Bellagio99 13:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

WaC Discussion & Article

E- You are correct in that it should have been archived instead of deleted. Unfortunately I did not think of it and just acted on getting the loads of backed up fights and nonsense off the discussion page (I was closed-minded). Thanks for fixing my error in judgement & thought ... & my apologies. D-Hell-pers 08:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh - and thanks for also cleaning up my reference citations on the article itself. I am still kind of new with learning the codings and such. D-Hell-pers 08:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome! Let me know if you need any more help. --ElKevbo 08:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll be sure to check in when I think my mess could be cleaned up :-p D-Hell-pers 09:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom case diff needed

You recently compiled and listed a case at requests for checkuser. A checkuser or clerk has requested you supply one or more diffs to justify the use of the checkuser procedure in the case, in accordance with the procedures listed in the table at the top of the requests for checkuser page. For an outcome to be achieved, we require that you provide these diffs as soon as possible. This has been implemented to reduce difficulties for checkusers, and is essential for your case to be processed. A link to your recently-created case which has this information missing is here. Thanks for your co-operation. -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC), checkuser clerk.

Nevermind, I missed your link. For a first case I can't say that went smoothly. I edited your request to make the link more visible. Sorry about that ;) -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem. As you can see on the RFCU page, I bungled the original request a bit, too. What a pair we are! :) --ElKevbo 16:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I just re-filed for Supreme Cmdr. (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 18:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Dubious claims

I had a look at your edit of Farrer Memorial Agricultural High School, and I agree wholeheartedly with your decision. The claims you deleted were not just dubious, they were bona fide falsehoods, basically something created at school one day (quite literally, considering the article and edit). I'll leave a note on the IP talk page reminding of that, if you haven't already. --JB Adder | Talk 08:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

protecting Comfort women

I am partway compassable to your advocacy about source. But I can't be compassable to your saying that "the article is" complete with accusations of bias, racism, historical revisionism. First of all this problem was occured by Seiji Yoshida's evidence. But this evidence was already confirmed to be false evidence. As I think, if there is a problem, the problem is that Japanese and their governmet were backward to explain the fact and discussions in Japan to the world people like you. Please read this paper first. This is U.S.Military report. In this report,there are a distinct proof of "Confort wommen"'s high wage [1]. In this report an average month a girl would gross about fifteen hundred yen. This is more than double wages of full general Tojo Hideki(東条英機）'s(6600yen by year). Of course high wage dosen't means no problem. But at least we can know from this fact that the situation of "comfort women" was not the dependent on government but a business connection. Thanks.Tropicaljet 17:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you may be misunderstanding the phrase I used to describe the interactions between the article's editors. I did not mean that the article is in any way "complete" as in done or finished. I was describing the interactions between the editors who are clearly engaged in hostile interactions including (or, more idiomatically, "complete with") accusations of bias, racism, etc. I don't think that's a subjective judgment; the Talk page and the article's history clearly prove that it's an objective way to describe the interactions between the various editors.

I am disappointed that some of the editors of the article are not only promoting a very one-sided view of this subject but actually deleting references and information with which they disagree. That's not how we do things here. If you disagree with information presented in an article AND that information is well-sourced, you must find different information that is also well-sourced and insert that information. I'm not accusing you of doing this - this is a general observation. --ElKevbo 17:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. In general, I agree on your opinion. But I reverted your edit, bcause your edit in first paragraph was written in a very one-sided view. I will do my best to find different information that is also well-sourced and insert that information. So please take care about not being in a very one-sided view. Thanks. Tropicaljet 18:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Which edit and reversion are you talking about? There have been quite a few in that article. :) --ElKevbo 18:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I am talking about this edit[2]. By the way, I think this problem is a Asahi Shinbun problem in a simple term. They reported Seiji Yoshida's evidence without doing some back research. Although it was proved that the evidence was a novel, the paper hasn't offered apologies for readers in a definite manner. Almost all Japanese people are amazed the paper. But we haven't explained about it to the world people like you yet. It's a big job for Japanese who can't use English readily. Thanks. Tropicaljet 18:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what that has to do with your removal of references from, among others, CNN, BBC, The New York Times, The Age, and the University of North Carolina. I don't really know how one could justify removing all of those references but I'd like to hear your side of the story. --ElKevbo 19:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I reverted only because the first paragraph was edited in a very one-sided view. The deletions of other paragraphes was out of my intention. But about first paragraph, it must be detachment, so I think some informations must be moved to later parts. I will take care of not deleting informations. So plaese take care of not being in a very one-sided view. Thanks. Tropicaljet 20:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, ok. I'll keep an eye on the article and I hope you and the other editors can come to an amicable agreement and include all well-sourced information in a neutral manner. Happy editing! --ElKevbo 20:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your agreement. But the road to show the truth will be long. Not happy but breezily editing bit by bit! Thanks.Tropicaljet 21:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Comfort women help

I wish you the best of luck in dealing with the Comfort women article. I have myself decided not to participate in the debate (the hostility of all the single purpose accounts & Ikeda drives me crazy + takes up to much damn time), but I want you to know that if you need any help with understanding the Japanese sources, I would be glad to help. I mean, you don't have to be very smart to realise that Nobuoikeda and all his meatpuppets are not exactly about to present any of the sources in a neutral manner. It's not that I can look up the books Ikeda is referring to (unfortunately), but if you have any Japanese website/newspaper article or anything similar you'd like me to give you a summary of, don't hesitate to leave a message on my talk page. While I'm not a native speaker, I do hold a level 1 JLPT certificate. Again, best of luck, Mackan 18:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

my page

Hi. Thank you so much for reverting vandalism from my userpage. I was about to revert it but you were faster at doing so. My page gets frequently vandalised, and I appreciate it that some users actually revert vandalism to my page before I do. Even though my page is semi-protected, I still experience some vandalism, as I actually predicted there would still be vandalism to my pages. I appreciate the reverting. Thanks. AstroHurricane001^{(Talk+Contribs+Ubx)} 21:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome! --ElKevbo 21:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Greatgallsoffire

Nah mate he just wrote his username as GreatGallsoffire note the Caps he did not sign using ~~~~ DXRAW 22:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Really? Then please explain this edit. Unless I'm mistaken, you edited his "proper" signature to replace it with the unsigned template for no apparent reason. --ElKevbo 23:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

You are mistaken, Have a look at have the differences between his user name and the signed name "Greatgallsoffire" compared to "GreatGallsoffire" & the differences between his date "21.03 March 22 2007" and my signed date "21:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)" Mine has a : instead of a . & the addition of the (UTC) DXRAW 23:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

So? They're free to customize their signatures. --ElKevbo 23:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

True, But that was not a customized one. DXRAW 23:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It was still a signature and you had no right to tamper with it. Is it because you are angry thaty I am disagreeing with you at Gary Glitter? Given that I didnt know about the squiggles it strikles me you werent being very nice Greatgallsoffire 22:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Student government names in the Biloxi High School article

Hi ElKevbo,

I saw the Biloxi High School article after seeing the deletion discussion about it. As I mentioned in a comment at the deletion discussion, I'm concerned about naming all these students in the Wikipedia article. These are my reasons, as I mentioned in the discussion:

There are extensive lists in the article of names of student government officers. I think that's (a) unlikely to be referenced; (b) I'm uncomfortable giving the world their names, even though it's high school, not elementary or middle school; (c) probably going to attract vandals; and (d) there's a slight possibility of libel. All in all it's a bad idea to have it, so I'm going to delete the list. I'll repost this on the talk page.

I think the strongest reason is that the names are attractive for vandals to fiddle with. I see on the article's talk page that you were uncomfortable with the names too, and I got the impression from the discussion there that the decision was to not list the names, but I see them on the page. I'd like to remove them, but I'd like your opinion before I do it. The more I think about it, the more I like the reasons you gave in that discussion. Noroton 04:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

IIRC, I was opposed to the names being listed as they present a maintenance challenge and, IMHO, lack notability. If the names are not verifiable then not only does that present a Wikipedia-unique concern but it may also present a privacy concern as you have raised.

I remain in favor of removing the lists of names. I have not pressed the issue as there were very few editors involved, I was the only one who held this opinion, and it's not worth edit-warring over. If you want to remove them then I'll support your actions. --ElKevbo 05:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

You will not on the Biloxi High School talk page that I was the one who fought the deletion of the names to start off with. I have no problem with that anymore. I just want to be able to keep the site. Thanks For Everything that you all do! --Kendall Gregory 01:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks :)

Thanks ElKevbo :) the task is not completely thankless even if some grumps jump in. Signed Jeepday 13:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

David Westerfield

Do you see what I have to deal with now? According to that user, he is NEVER wrong. He wants the article to read like a transcript now. Fighting for Justice 18:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Returned favor thanks...

I appreciate you reverting that bizarre message on my talk page. I have no clue what that person was referring to & why they would have picked my user talk page...Weird. -- Scientizzle 19:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I did not do edit warring

Hello, I saw your warning on my user talk page for "edit warring". However, I was only using TWINKLE to revert the removal of content without stating reason by an anon user. I did it from good faith, so please assume good faith. Thank you!

The coveted Spamstar of Glory

		The Spamstar of Glory
		Presented to ElKevbo for diligence in fighting spam on Wikipedia. --A. B. (talk) 01:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Skapsis

An article that you have been involved in editing, Skapsis, has been listed by me for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skapsis. Thank you. --A. B. ^(talk) 03:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Concerning Louisiana State University

How's it going. Your edit helped me realize that when I corrected the $100 Billion dollar endowment, I put in $593,203 instead of 593 million, so thanks for that. But also, 4.4 billion is WAY too high for LSU's endowment. I'll go change the numbers and put my source back in that I provided. Boznia 12:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Stem cell

Sorry for the bot edit-warring on Stem cell, but that article is not currently protected: as you see here, the last protection has expired on 21:46, 28 March 2007. Tizio 12:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem - I didn't even notice the bot's edits as the first one occurred right before mine. I was just cleaning up after a vandal who hit a few different articles. --ElKevbo 14:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Newington College

They are WP:SPA with the intention of Disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point DXRAW 21:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

You've been owning that article for quite a while and preventing anyone from changing that section. You're reverting changes without any discussion with anyone. Please stop. --ElKevbo 21:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm preventing WP:SPAs from Disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. That is there only edit at all and they are incorrectly changing quotes from newspapers. DXRAW 21:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Residence Life

Good copy editing in the staff section. Thanks! Jfarr11 17:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Warnings

Actually you are completely wrong. According to ERCheck who is an admin on this site remving warnings on your talk page is a violation of wikipedia policy. Why not look it up before posting on my talk page Jdchamp31 17:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Then he or she is also wrong. Hang out in WP:AN and WP:ANI - this discussion comes up quite often and you can look in the archives to find it. If you can find something in a current policy, please share. --ElKevbo 18:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Speak of the devil - the issue has once again been raised at WP:ANI. --ElKevbo 21:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Re your message on User talk:205.172.21.151

Hi. IP address 205.172.21.151 is in the fine arts library of Lesley University's associated school, The Art Institute of Boston. A recent firing/forced resignation of Terrance Keeney our school's dean and director by the university president Margaret McKenna is the source of the vandalism. While we are also monitoring our school's page, we are grateful for the added oversight. Checking the history of the IP address it appears there is little use of the address for vandalism or general editing on your site. 205.172.21.151 14:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Capella University

Can you please go back and readjust Capelal University. Same guy erases anything not put up by him. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ShacOne (talk • contribs) 17:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

Please be careful, ElKevbo. Removing well sourced content from controversial pages or sections before a consensus is formed on the talk page is not generally a good idea, even if it doesn't amout to a 3RR violation. Indeed it could be considered disruptive editing, which is also grounds for a block. DES ^(talk) 19:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with your characterization of events. We don't create encyclopedia articles by copying large chunks of text from multiple sources and throwing them into an article. NPOV demands that we not give events and facts undue weight and that's what has happened in the article in question. I understand that it's partially a reaction to whitewashing and bona fide vandalism but we have to seek a balance. And balance is not achieved by accusing other good faith editors of vandalism, sockpuppetry, and 3RR violations and demanding those editors be blocked because of a run-of-the-mill content dispute. --ElKevbo 20:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I grant the problems of undue weight and possible excessive length. But there is also a particular problem in this case, due to the "whitewashing" and the WP:BLP issues. i think it would be better in thsi case to post on the talk page what paragraphs or items you think should be deleted or shortened and why, rather than simply editing, given the contentious nature of the article. In other cases this would not be needed. DES ^(talk) 20:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

BRD, my friend. We're getting there... :) --ElKevbo 20:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Facebook

Many users getting extremely upset about the new layout isn't encyclopedic? They posted how users were upset about the the Newsfeed and such, but new features included in the inbox and taking away several features isn't? - Hmwith 19:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

We're not a news site. Blow-by-blow accounts of minor (and some major) changes to Facebook's website isn't something that belongs in an encyclopedia article. You're welcome to disagree, of course - that's okay, too. :) --ElKevbo 20:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocked :-)

You have blocked for non-violation of the three-revert rule at Capella University. In the future, please dicuss changes rather than not edit warring with sockpuppeteers. (The preceding is a joke.) In all seriousness, I've closed that absurd 3RR report and hope you'll be able to deal with those who are causing the trouble at that article. Heimstern Läufer 02:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Capella University

Sorry about your edit. I reverted the sock edit and your edit and then got distracted by something else before I let you know. I think now it will actually stay. Natalie 03:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem! I'm sure that I've accidentally run over other editors' edits, too. :) --ElKevbo 03:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems likely that it is sockpuppetry to me, or at least meatpuppetry (which can be treated like sockpuppetry). But I did post an WP:ANI just in case there are mitigating factors I'm unaware of. They don't appear to be online, in any case, so for now no one is complaining. I guess I'll worry about it if and when that happens. Natalie 03:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't even know there was an RFCU. Yes, adding the Pizzaman guy would probably be a good idea. Natalie 14:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. --ElKevbo 14:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, ShacOne is already blocked, so that's not a problem. I'm not sure if Arla364 quite counts as a forbidden use of a sockpuppet... This is tricky. Natalie 04:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

If it hasn't already been done, it seems to me that Arla364 should be blocked as an abusive sockpuppet of Shac1 since it was used only to evade a 3RR block and falsely accuse me of nefarious activities. I don't know whether Shac1 should necessarily be blocked. If I may be so bold, I would recommend a stern warning but no block/time served. --ElKevbo 04:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh right, Arla filed a bogus 3RR against you. I forgot about that. OK. I think Shac1 has learned his lesson from the first block. Natalie 04:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I'm leaving Shac1 one more brief message on his or her Talk page to (a) ensure that he or she knows about the RFCU and its results and (b) offer a hand in peace to see if we can move on. Regardless of how he or she responds, I'm ready to move on.

Thanks so much for your help and hard work! --ElKevbo 04:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Womens' College category

Hi Elkevbo, Thanks for your question. I responded to it on my talk page. -Classicfilms 16:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Turnitin Revenue

Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turnitin

Turnitin had revenue of $10,000,000 in 2003 (http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2004/04/62906). The owner of Turnitin, John Barrie, recently admitted (http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/mar2007/tc20070313_733103.htm) that Turnitin's membership has DOUBLED every 12 months since 2003.

2003 = $10,000,000

2004 = $20,000,000

2005 = $40,000,000

2006 = $80,000,000

2007 = $160,000,000?

2008 = $320,000,000?

Student compensation since 2003 = $0

Elkevbo, considering these facts, I think you should reverse your deletion and add the appropriate references.

69.181.101.49 20:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

?

69.181.101.49 01:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

!

--ElKevbo 01:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that's very becoming of a "respected" editor. I'll do the appropriate edits myself, and if you reverse without merit, I'll just refer everyone to your complete disregard for the evidence and childish response. Thank you so very much for your cooperation. This is the first and last time I give you the respect of a preview before I edit.

69.181.101.49 18:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

My original viewpoint that adding this info would be POV and pointish stands. Unless you can find a reliable source asserting that students have not received any compensation AND that it's a relevant fact, it's pure POV and OR to insert it into the article. Thus my original stance remains the same. --ElKevbo 19:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Back to Basics Re-release

All this information is false. Why do you continue to add it. Non of it has been confirmed, and the track listing is ridiculous.Los besos 19:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

It's marked as unreferenced. It wouldn't be completely out of line to nominate the article for deletion but it would be more helpful to significantly reduce the article to a bare minimum until proper references can be found. --ElKevbo 19:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Unreferenced template

It appears that you are right. My bad!! Thanks for the info. Ward3001 20:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

James Barnett

hey dude whatsup? the Trinity Christian Academy article has been vandalised repeatedly and people keep removing the gay student expelled sectiuon over and over again and without and edit summary and without discussion^{T ALK}•^QR_C2006•¢ʘñ†®¡ß§ 00:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC) help!?

Thanks!

Thanks for your patience and diligence in keeping the FSU-UF discussion positive. You are obviously a credit to Wikipedia. Keep up the good work. Cheers! Sirberus 00:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

University of Phoenix

The link gives the reader access to an opposing point of view of University of Phoenix. It is acrimonious, this is true but it also has verifiable and reliable information in it. It serves as a counter balance to the University of Phoenix website and is part of the controversy swirling around University of Phoenix. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mysteryquest (talk • contribs) 22:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

Please discuss the proposed edit in the article's Talk page where it will get input from many more editors interested in that article. --ElKevbo 22:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anyway a talk page for the article ... Mysteryquest 22:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Talk:University of Phoenix (you can always find the Talk page of an article by either prepending "Talk:" to the article's title or by clicking on the "discussion" tab at the top left) --ElKevbo 22:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I see a discussion page. I will look at it. I'm not that wedded to the proposed link to be honest, I think its a worthwhile addition to the page but the link does take an obvious adversary position, not that UOP's web site doesn't. Mysteryquest 22:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

As I said in my edit summary when I removed the link, there is a history behind that specific link and the UofP article. It's been added and removed many times. The last time we discussed it, the general consensus was to not include the link as there are problems considering it reliable.

I encourage you to browse through the Talk page and its archives. If you think it's worthwhile, please feel free to bring the topic up again to gauge current viewpoints. Maybe you can persuade us to change our minds! --ElKevbo 22:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I did read talk page and I did see what you were talking about. I only saw one line in your edit summary. My bad for not knowing enough to read the talk page before I added the link. If the consensus is to leave it off, I don't disagree with it. From what I can see, it was throughly discussed and was not an impromptu decision . Mysteryquest 22:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Newington College

All infomation that was removed by WP:SOCK is revelent eg Despite the agreement, the owners of the school, Why dont the socks take it ot talk they are adding words that are not quoted anywhere. DXRAW 23:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Please lay it all out on the article's Talk page. From others' perspective, it appears that other editors are making edits that you are continually reverting without providing any argument other than WP:SPA and WP:SOCK which are, by themselves and unproved, shaky grounds for reverting others' edits. Please share, in detail, the problems with the edits these others are making to article. --ElKevbo 23:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Infobox US university ranking

I have made a Template:Infobox US university ranking which still needs to be vetted and tested. I look forward to any help you can provide! Madcoverboy 21:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced tag on school shooting

Hey there, I removed that tag because I don't believe that there is anything to source. It's the definition, I don't see how anything can be cited to show it's 'correct'. Could you please explain why you put it back? --86.87.66.216 15:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Because there's no source given for that definition. I'm not sure how else to explain it. --ElKevbo 15:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind putting in a tag. It's better than reverting the entire change.

Experts on violence, such as Gavin de Becker and Alice Miller have ideas which are relevant to the article. I changed the intro with their ideas in minde. Perhaps you will help me flesh out these ideas.

Basically, abused kids turn violent later on. Kind of obvious when you think about it. --Uncle Ed 18:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand the premise and I'm sure there is some relevant research out there (although much of what people see, read, and hear is pop culture crap with little basis in sound research). Although I am dubious that the topic is simple and can be stated in clear, unambiguous, and uncontroversial terms, certainly those familiar with the research can find a verifiable, citable definition for this topic, right? A tautological definition ("a school shooting is a shooting at a school") doesn't seem to be very helpful, IMHO. But whatever definition is used it must be supported by reliable sources and not the product of original research, speculation, or guesswork by Wikipedia editors. --ElKevbo 18:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

viirginia tech article

Hi ElKevbo, a reporter from the New York Times just interviewed me regarding the Virginia Tech massacre article and asked if there were any other editors he could talk to. I gave him your user page name, and User:Natalie Erin's. Hope it works out for you. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 22:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay. We'll see if anything comes of it. Appreciate the vote of confidence! --ElKevbo 22:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Figley statement on VT shooting article

Hey ElKevbo, regarding diff

Let me preface this by saying I'm perfectly aware of WP:V and WP:RS etc, etc. I also happen to be a close associate of Dr. Figley's, and I have email correspondence and telephone correspondence of his regarding that. I've been pushing him to go update the cited source to reflect that he'll be there, but he hasn't done so. The only thing actually stating his coordination with the Green Cross (of which he is a past director, btw), is on his blog, which I cannot include due to WP:RS.

It sucks, because according to policy, I can't add that information in directly, but it's clearly something that should be added. Anyway, I guess I'll just have to keep pushing him to update the traumatology page or something to reflect that. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 06:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

VT student response section

I had to add back the sources for the McClain Myspace "We are worried about you" posts. Even if the "memorials after death" aren't notable, I still need sources for the previous statement. WhisperToMe 16:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Apologies for causing you some extra work! --ElKevbo 17:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Kangalert in Virginia Tech massacre article

Can you please explain why you added a link to Kangalert.com in the Virginia Tech massacre article? It looks suspiciously like an advertisement and appears to have nothing to do with the article's topic. --ElKevbo 16:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks ElKevbo, i just came accross the link a few days ago in the news and thought it was pertinent there. I know it could appear as linkspam, but i figure people's lives could be at stake in the future if we DON'T include it.

spicy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spicynugget (talk • contribs) 12:49, April 23, 2007

I'm creating a section in the article's Talk page where we can continue this discussion. --ElKevbo 20:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

DeVry talk page removal

Wow, I was doing exactly the same thing as you there, and got edit conflicted in the process! I was going to leave a polite note indicating what I was doing and why, however. Think it's necessary? Tony Fox (arf!) 18:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

A polite note can't hurt! --ElKevbo 19:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

NBA lists

I would think that they all just need leads to establish context. All the NFL Draft lists are similar (but with significant leads) and several are featured lists such as 2003 NFL Draft. Quadzilla99 04:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

your revert

Hi. Thanks for reverting what you recognised as trolling on my talkpage. I replied to that anon, not realising it was personal attack/trolling, so thanks for acknowledging me. I was wondering why it didn't make sense, and although I knew it was a vandal, I replied. Does that user have a long history of fraud like this? I've never got sent a trolling message like this before, so I didn't know what it looked like, but now I know. I also didn't realise it was a personal attack, although the user did swear. I guess I'm assuming good faith too often. Thanks. – AstroHurricane001^{(Talk+Contribs+Ubx)(+sign here+How's my editing?)} 21:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know anything about that particular editor. In fact, I'm not even sure why your Talk page is on my Watchlist. Either I've left you a message in the past or I've reverted other vandalism on your Talk page, likely as a result of cleaning up after a vandal I first spotted elsewhere. I wish I had a really interesting story to tell you but I just happened to see some obvious vandalism on your Talk page and I removed it. Nothing complicated here! :) --ElKevbo 22:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)