User talk:ElKevbo/Archive 1

Anne Coulter
Please tell me why you removed the humourous quote from this article. David Letterman recieves far more exposure than The Guardian and the UNCITED reference included. This quote has become famous and was broadcast to millions, the Tv Clip i referenced is proof enough surely. Letterman regularly recieves million of viewers while the Guardian (limbaugh reference) only has a limited UK readership. I can supply the figures if you wish. This quote and the clip are widely available on ALL major video clip resources, YOUTUBE, GOOGLEVIDEO etc etc and as such it is relevant to Anne Coulter's article. I have reinstated the original version until such time as you can explain your actions correctly.

H4xx0r
Thanks for your comments. I've cleaned up the articles a bit more now. Hopefully they'll stick. &mdash;Pengo 13:41, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

The pic
Youre very welcome.--Zereshk 13:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

21:34, 10 March 2006 ElKevbo (rv: link spam)
Hello, ElKevbo!

Please, tell me why you removed my links from the external links of the article? I have placed a related links. If it is an affiliate it is not a reason for remooving it, isn't it?

Please explain your decision

Best regards, A4Tech

--

I don't believe links to a commercial seller of posters adds to this encyclopedia or that particular article. It appears to me to be a transparent ploy to simply gain more business. You're free to add the links back to the article - I won't delete them. I'm sure someone else will, though. And if I'm wrong and no one deletes them then I'm clearly in the minority and I'll happily live with that.

In any case, I appreciate you asking and your willingness to deal with this rationally and respectfully!

--ElKevbo 23:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Jack Thompson Article
I know you're already looking but basically anything you can find on Thompson would help. Verifiable proof of his Note to Reno would be golden. Other topics you may want to look up which we know Thompson has had input on: Robida murders(slightly covered already) Elian Gonzalas, Diseases on Disney Cruises are Bioterrism, 2000 Elections, Washington Sniper Murders, Columbine, Kobe Bryant, Howard Stern, 2 Live Crew, Alabama Devin Thompson Trial (although its been sometimes reported as Devin Moore), the list just goes on and on... Tollwutig

thanks for you help
just wanted to say thanks for your help in helping me develop the site for my former school. i am still new to this wikipedia business and still have not really mastered all the editing techniques.

Refs
Hello, ElKevbo! I noticed that you were removing full date links from the s in George W. Bush. The wiki-linking of full dates allows MediaWiki to recognize the link as a date; users can then adjust how the dates are viewed in his/her preferences. See Manual of Style (dates and numbers) for more information. Thus, would you mind not removing any more links and also adding wikilinks to dates to any further references that you add? This would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note? ) 21:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot! Flcelloguy (A note? ) 21:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * No, thank YOU! I guess I got carried away... :)  --ElKevbo 22:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!
Your mastery of the reference syntax is most admirable. :) Thanks! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 17:41, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Christdot
Hi, I've responded to your edit on the /. talk page --Nnp 20:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Response
I'm afraid that there's not much more that I can do. It's entirely possible that the two users are acting in concert but ultimately unprovable. I suggest raising the matter at the administrators' noticeboard. Best, and good luck, Mackensen (talk) 18:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

UCRGrad
You might want to look here for info if you're attempting to get him banned. He really needs to go, thanks for standing up. After 2 months I am dead tired of it. a user subpage TheRegicider 18:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I've copied information on UCRGrad from Tifego's user subpage and am currently editing it to submit as an RfA. The updated file is located here:

Please consider contributing a statement if you are still in support of this action.--Amerique 22:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Arg...
I don't appreciate that. ---J.S (t|c) 20:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Relax - I'm just poking your buttons. I *really* appreciate you weighing in on that *bizarre* article! :)  --ElKevbo 21:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry... I was really frustrated. You should have seen what I didn't post here. :) ---J.S (t|c) 23:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

EssayFraud.org
After further research and consideration, I withdraw my previous offer to allow essayfraud.org to remain linked to from this article. The site has little merit and is notable primarily for the controversy it has stirred up in Wikipedia and elsewhere; accusations (backed by some evidence) have been leveled that it is linked to other prominent essay mills.

I also object to the uncivil and combative behavior of [User:SarahTeach] in this discussion. She has exhibited similar behavior in past discussions of essayfraud.org. To keep from cluttering this page with further discussion related to SarahTeach's behavior and unrelated to the article, I recommend further discussion (if necessary) take place on SarahTeach's Talk page or my own. --ElKevbo 20:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

"Controversy"? With who--you and the essay mill owners? Only essay mill owners oppose EssayFraud.org. That, I can understand, but what's YOUR reason? Do you support essay mill owners, ElKevbo? Why are you so ardently opposed to an anti-plagiarism site? If I didn't know better, it would appear as though you have a vested interest in opposing EssayFraud.org. "Evidence"? You mean the fabricated nonsense spewed by the Ukrainian essay mill owners to which you link above? Your opinion does not carry an ounce more wait than mine. It's funny how you accuse ME of being rude, when it is YOU who started that trend! Should I show everyone the proof? And, for the public record, what have YOU done to curb plagiarism? SarahTeach 22:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Your personal attacks and uncivility are unappreciated and unwelcome on Wikipedia. Continue them and I will request that your account be blocked or banned.  --ElKevbo 22:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, way to ignore my direct questions. You can issue false accusations, but when I confront you about it and ask direct questions, you threaten me? SarahTeach 01:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I ignore your accusations couched as questions because they are not worth the dignity of a response. I threaten you because you repeatedly and willfully violate Wikipedia policies and disrupt the community.  --ElKevbo 02:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Nice try. If you have an ounce of intestinal fortitude, you will answer my questions. SarahTeach 03:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I have left comments about this on SarahTeach's talk page and at Talk:Plagiarism. Please remember that civility must be maintained and that the previous consensus was that this link was linkspam. Best, --Alabamaboy 20:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Question about your recent popup-aided reversion of the USMC article
You recently reverted the United States Marine Corps article. I believe that this reversion is in error. If you follow the link that you reinstated, you will see that the just changed version with the spelling "Ooh-rah" is an alternative spelling. The change was made by a relatively new editor who may not be familiar with the ability to link as  "Ooh-rah" . I'll wait to hear back from you before making any edits related to this. If you feel strongly about the reversion you made, please discuss it on the article's talk page. Thanks. &mdash;ERcheck (talk) @ 14:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The version I reverted had completely de-wikified the word and had a spelling mistake. Go ahead and correct the spelling if it's wrong.  I think you may have just made a mistake or two in your edit that I noticed and reverted.  No big deal!  --ElKevbo 19:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, I didn't make the edit at all. I was just noticing your revert and wanted to check with your reasoning before I made the change.  Now, I'll go ahead and restore the spelling and keep the wikilinks that you restored.  &mdash;ERcheck (talk) @ 20:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You're right - you're not the person who made the edit. My apologies!  Thanks for your messages and kind cooperation!  --ElKevbo 19:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Buffy the Vampire Slayer external links
Buffy is nothing if not fansites. You've changed the category 'Unofficial Websites', which actually meant something to the buffy topic, to 'external links' which means nothing.

I understand your point of "Wikipedia is not a collection of links". Yet the links you leave on the page amount to nothing more than a collection of fan site links. I don't feel put out that you removed the link I added. I do feel put out that you haven't taken the same 'subjective' look at the links you've chosen to leave on the page. In fact I wouldn't have posted in the first place if the existing links hadn't given me reason to believe my link had just as much right to be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.72.30.83 (talk • contribs) 13:39, 11 June 2006


 * First, I agree that the links in the Buffy article could use some more scrutiny. I noted as much on the article's Talk page over a week ago.  We'd sure appreciate any assistance you can provide us in tackling this issue!
 * Second, I disagree with your characterization of the removal of the "Unofficial links" title. First of all, there should never be just one subsection in a section.  That just doesn't make any sense.  Second, the clear implication of the title "Unofficial links" is that there are "Official links."  As of right now, there are no official links.  Finally, I disagree with your assertion that the title "External links" means nothing.  That is Wikipedia convention and is consistent with nearly every other Wikipedia article.
 * Finally, I disagree with your contention that "Buffy is nothing if not fansites" as there are clearly several websites on that list that are not just fansites in the broad sense of the word. And even your assertion were true, it still wouldn't matter as Wikipedia is not a collection of links and it's only appropriate to put one fansite link in an article.  I'm more than willing to bend that convention when it makes sense and I think it makes sense when multiple, well-maintained fansites contribute meaningfully *and* differently to the article and the reader's understanding of the topic.  --ElKevbo 19:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Moritz refs
I'm happy to provide references (as I was when you pointed-out areas in need). The article is still in its infancy and I welcome feedback in the future. The title of the "Notes" section is unimportant to me. The WP I used was not policy, per se, as the one you provided is. I'd like to keep it as "Notes" for now, as a "References" section will be added. Rkevins82 06:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

92.3 The Beat
Noting your post on WP:ANI, I tagged the above article for speedy deletion as an A1 (very short article/no context) but as an aside, please note that if a prod you place on an article is removed, you shouldn't replace it, see WP:PROD. Regards, MartinRe 10:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, you're right. We've had problems with the user that removed the notice reverting any and all changes to his or her article (he or she has subsequently been indefinitely blocked) so that slipped by me.  --ElKevbo 14:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

URBAN MEDIA INC
Thanks for reporting that user, I see the account has been blocked now. I was hoping he or she would eventually heed the warnings but there's no reasoning with some people. :) I'm keeping the page on my watchlist in case any more text mysteriously disappears... --Grace 12:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
...for reverting my page. I don't know what gets into people. Rkevins82 22:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Your page was still on my watchlist from the message I left the other day. I'm pretty aggressive about reverting vandalism so I've definitely had my share of strangers reverting other strangers' vandalism on my User and Talk page. :)  Wikipedia's like everything else in life - we just gotta stick together and look out for one another.  --ElKevbo 22:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Especially us Kevins.Rkevins82 23:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Wanna know what I hate?
Besides having large numbers of unsourced statements in biographies... those stupid pages in booklets or manuals that have "This page intentionally left blank" on a "blank page". I just don't get why they have it there. Were people complaining all the time or inquiring where their lost pages were? I just always think it's pointless. Just had to say something. Okay, back to work. -- LV (Dark Mark)  16:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I know - that's why I did it. :) --ElKevbo 17:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You did it because you knew that I hated it? I really don't think you should be reading my mind. It might scare you. ;-) -- LV (Dark Mark)  19:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It probably would. :) No, I always got a chuckle out of seeing that text on pages.  I saw them a lot during my brief tenure in the Navy (the federal government seems to be very fond of it).  I understand why it's there but it's still slightly amusing in a bizarre way.  --ElKevbo 22:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

RFARB filed against UCRGrad
Please consider adding a statement here if you are still at all concerned with this.--Amerique 16:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Done. Thanks for initiating this!  Please let me know what else I can do to help!  --ElKevbo 17:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * My pleasure. Thanks for your statement. I don't think there is anything left to do other than wait and see if this RfA is accepted by the committee. At that point there may need to be some evidence gathering, but Tifego and others have already extracted lots of choice bits from the archives so I don't think this presents any problem.


 * Re:Insert-Belltower, I don't think he has been as significant a hinderance as UCRG following his divestment from sockpuppets. Assuming UCRG is eventually banned from editing the article, I am curious to see what sort of effect this will have on his activities. Thanks again,--Amerique 21:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * IB has inserted himself into the RFARB. Care to identify him as the "other editor who exclusively edits this article?" Possibly this RFARB can be used to kill two birds with one stone.--Amerique 17:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm content to let it lie for now and trust the integrity of the RfA process and the competence of the ArbCom. We can always bring it up if necessary (but I hope it won't be necessary). --ElKevbo 19:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey, could you help me gather more evidence showing how prior steps in dispute resolution could not work in this case? Morven seems to be a reasonable man, maybe if we presented more evidence in a better outlined fashion we could convince him that resolution steps requiring good faith are impossible in this case. thanks for your time.--Amerique 00:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Witches of Eastwick
I don't understand your thought process in deleting the reference to The Witches of Eastwick in the Ann Coulter article. How can it be "original research" to point out an obvious literary allusion that other editors, for whatever reason, have missed? Why isn't it citation enough to link to a Wikipedia article that makes the allusion extremely plain? Maybe you could follow the link and see if you agree that there's a literary allusion there.

Though I believe you deleted my clarification in good faith, I must say that there seems to be a pattern of deleting material that clarifies Ann Coulter's words or positions, or that paints them in anything but a negative light. Lou Sander 17:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * First, I don't see the allusion. Yes, I did read the linked article (and several others) but I still don't see the allusion.  It's innocous and I am happy to take your word for it and accept that I am, indeed, simply "not getting it." :)
 * Second, if you are accusing me of selectively removing material with a political or POV objective, then I take exception to that accusation.  I am doing my best to ensure this very high traffic article about a contentious subject cites sources for all major allegations, statements, and quotes.  There are handful of what I perceive to be very minor assertions that are unsourced that I have not removed but I would have absolutely no problem if someone else insisted on removing them.  I simply believe that they have no practical effect on the article one way or the other.
 * I don't particularly care about Ms. Coulter which is exactly why I have taken an interest in her article - I hope I can bring some objectivity to the article and help keep it from being filled with unsourced allegations and statements about a very high-profile, politically active person. It's not just policy, it's also a good idea and the humane thing to do.  Most of the time, I'm simply looking for  tags or obvious unsourced assertions.  It's possible that there are many errors, deliberate or accidental, in the article that I have missed.
 * If I have misunderstood you or failed to clarify myself, please let me know! --ElKevbo 18:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Why did you edit my George W. Bush contrib?
Pistolpierre 17:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article about George Bush. Wikipedia is not a collection of links.  Please feel free to discuss it in the article's talk page.  If my view is not the consensus view, I'm more than happy to refrain from removing the link in the future.  In fact, go ahead and add it again if you feel strongly about it - I won't remove it (but I suspect someone else will).  --ElKevbo 17:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

UCR
In rejecting this I agree with Morven's statments. Also from my own reading of the talk page and look through the page history, this actually seems to be a fairly civil debate, if a lengthy and sometimes a bit heated one. - SimonP 21:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I think it goes without saying that I disagree with your characterization of the debate.  I think it's a tribute to the personalities involved that it has remained "fairly civil" as it has been extremely frustrating and, in the end, pointless.  Numerous editors have tried to contribute to the article and have left after a brief time as their contributions and attempts at consensus have been frustrated by two editors whose sole contributions to Wikipedia are edits to the UCR article.
 * No big deal. I gave up trying to improve that article a few months ago and am happily spending my energy elsewhere.  Thanks for participating in the arbitration process!  --ElKevbo 21:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

hello elkevbo,

currently there are several processes underway. it remains to be seen how any of this will work out. i have not contacted people personally involved with the first RFARB because i did not want it to seem like i personally was getting that gang back together on my own initiative, rendering the POV others have been articulating as the POV of some p.o.'d clique. i've contacted others involved with that action after they have since joined in and engaged on the ucr talk page, however. activities there have been proceeding dramatically. i would appreciate it if you would add your opinion to the ucr survey i developed, and we will see where things go from there.--Amerique 21:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Done. --ElKevbo 23:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Western College at Miami University
Look it up. The board of trustees at Miami voted to remove the Western College!


 * Great! Say that in the edit summary or the Talk page.  Otherwise no one knows why you are deleting material from an article.  --ElKevbo 00:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Frat
how is that POV dude? its just a link to what some frats do. which is drink! and you know there are no studies that show that greeks drink more, no never. tool. and i said it was stereotypical. frat guys are parodied as drunk idiots all the time i.e. animal house. put it back up now Qrc2006 22:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * First, I do not appreciate your hostility. Wikipedia operates on principles of collegiality and compromise. Your [[WP:CIVIL|insults and demands] are unwelcome and unproductive.
 * Second, I viewed the video again and saw no evidence that the individuals involved are even a fraternity. If I missed such evidence, please feel free to point it out to me. In any case, our role as editors in Wikipedia should be at best to document stereotypes and not reinforce them. Links to and discussion about studies alleging increased levels of drinking among Greeks would be welcome and appropriate in that article if presented in the NPOV manner. 	+
 * Finally, it would be most productive if you carried this conversation to the Talk page of the appropriate article where it will be seen by others interested in the article. --ElKevbo 22:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Pardon me kind sir, what exactly makes me uncivil? Per chance we've met? But please enlighten me, since your so worried about it and having a fit over it. I feel your overeacting and I am greatly offended! I feel you are rude; Is that uncivil? Can I not express my god given rights? It seems to me you think you own wikipedia and get to dictate what people get to say and do and that's just wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qrc2006 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 1 July 2006


 * I would refer you to your previous comment on my Talk page (a few lines above this one) where you refer to me as a "tool" and demand that I put "put it back up now." Deleting someone else's comments on a Talk page is also considered hostile and I view deleting my own comments from my Talk page as hostility of the highest order.  --ElKevbo 22:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Op-ED bias towards Israeli writers
How do I talk to you about this?

The group Palestine Media Watch (PMWATCH) shows that The New York Times has a strong pro-Israel and Pro-Jewish bias. In particular, PMWATCH asserts that of the five US newspapers with the highest circulation, "The New York Times has been the least balanced over the last three years with an average of 4.3 Israeli op-ed writers for every Palestinian."

The relative balance at The Washington Post and USA Today indicates that a bias towards Israeli writers is not inevitable, but is a result of the choices made by the editors at The New York Times.-

This does not say they are Pro-Israel, it does not suggest anything but a nummerical advantage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SkyEarth (talk • contribs) 10:40, July 3, 2006


 * Let's take this to the article's Talk page. --ElKevbo 15:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: General Tojo
I understand the situation is being handled, I can't do anything about it personally. —  Fire Fox  14:54, 05 July '06
 * Okay. I wasn't necessarily making a plea for you to personally handle "the situation;" I'm just happy that someone is handling it. :)  --ElKevbo 15:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Condoleezza Rice
I've reverted your last edit to a version you previously created (yes, I reverted from you back to you). Given that numerous sources state: "speaks fluent Russian", I saw no reason to compromise with JB. In fact, I'm not sure that it was your intention to make such a compromise. I apologize if I misread your intention. And thank you for your support. I've never heard Rice speak Russian, so I have no idea if she's fluent or not (and we don't allow original research, anyway). I'm just keen on supporting Wikipedia's verifiability policy. Rklawton 17:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey, no problem! I'm with you - I don't particularly care about the Rice article, I just want it to be accurate and in line with our policies.  It could definitely use some work with regards to the references cited or lack thereof.  --ElKevbo 18:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts to make the Condoleezza Rice article more neutral. Despite what the author of the disputed content thinks, I'm really not very political. As far as Wikipedia goes, I like to keep people guessing at what my personal feelings are (you'll see a wide variety of reverts in my history). Keep up the good work! OhNo itsJamie Talk 02:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Here's what it boils down to: I have a lot of hot-button articles on my watchlist (from both sides of the spectrum). I reverted the original content because it seemed to be a bit too much of an attack with questionable sources.  As I've said on the talk page, I think the issues raised (that Rice is the subject of opposition both abroad and at home, especially from the African American community) are perfectly legit.  I just want to see those issues stated in a neutral fashion with reasonable sources.  The current article may already be at that point, but I would like to get a few outside opinions before I remove the POV tag. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 02:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay! I appreciate the positive comments and support!  We'll see where this particular article goes but it certainly helps to have several people keeping an eye on it.  --ElKevbo 02:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The "this is not necessarily the sentiment of all African Americans toward Rice" section being forced into the critics corner is not founded. The remarks don't respond or counter Condi's actions, the general civic mood of the black community nor do they specfically address any of the cited issues. They reflect opinions of her political colleagues and don't pretend to counter the "Larger Community" view. You should find black community representatives who support Condi's actions and political policy not just blind support for a fellow "Black Person" which is what your citations imply. They say, "Don't call her names" but the don't say, "She was praised for her role in rescuing drowning victims during the Hurricane." No, that award goes to Sean Penn.--Francespeabody 21:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I don't quite follow you. Can you please specifically reference a diff to help clarify what it is upon which you're commenting?  --ElKevbo 22:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The citation used twice, does not speak to the Condi issue of how she is viewed by Blacks in the community for her direct actions. They only speak to the view of two politicians unhappy about how the senate is treating Condi. Even you can see the problem with using a Senate attack to defend her actions and view from the black community. {unsigned|Francespeabody|17:16, July 11, 2006}


 * Okay, I see what you're saying. I'm trying to make way through all of the references in that section but it keeps changing so fast that it's taking me a little while. :)  I suspect you may be right and I'll put something in the article's Talk page when I get to those references if I find them or their characterization objectionable.  I've already found one sentence and reference in that paragraph with needs to be removed.  --ElKevbo 22:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Longhorn references
You're very welcome. I agree with you that it improves the article. I have a couple more here that I am planning to add. Is there any fact in particular that you would like to see referenced before I remove the tag? Thanks, Johntex\talk 18:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to remove the tag. I'm confident that the article is now in good hands.  --ElKevbo 18:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks! We have a nice WikiProject for UT, and there is another one for the state of Texas, and a third one for the state of Oklahoma, so there are quite a lot of active Wikipedians who help out with this section.  I'll remove the tag.  Best, Johntex\talk 18:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Protection/RfC
With regards to Condoleezza Rice, thanks for filing the above. Isopropyl 03:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! I hope it helps...  --ElKevbo 03:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Request that you weigh in
Hello I'm Aeon Insert-Belltower Advocate, I request that you go to this page on my user space (Aeon's AMA page) and give your version of events. You seem like an objective third party and I feel that is what is needed right now. Aeon Insane Ward  04:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to help in any way I can but I am sure that Insert-Belltower will not view me as a neutral third party. I could be wrong but I am not familiar with the process in which these parties are engaged and don't want to compromise the process in any way.  If after reading this and reviewing the edit history of the UCR article and its talk page (with a specific view to considering my interactions with Insert-Belltower and his ally UCRGrad) you still would like me to weigh in, please let me know and I'll happily do so.  --ElKevbo 04:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, if you can help in anyway then it would be invaluble. Aeon  Insane Ward  04:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay. It will take me a bit to review the history of my interactions with Insert-Belltower as I ceased all interactions with him and UCRGrad a few months ago (out of frustration) so it will likely be tomorrow before I add anything.  --ElKevbo 05:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That is fine I found out about another issue with I-B that I need to sort out. Thanks  Aeon  Insane Ward  05:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * When ever you are ready we are holding the discussion until you are able to post Aeon  Insane Ward  23:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I am actually typing it right now (was looking up some policies and reviewing histories when I saw the bright orange "You have new messages" message). :) --ElKevbo 23:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for posting. I have a feeling that this is going to be a drawn out issue.  Aeon  Insane Ward  15:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * *laughter* You think so, huh? I think you're probably right.
 * I'm in the process of adding some more to the discussion. Please let me know if anything I'm adding is out of line or out of place in the discussion.  --ElKevbo 15:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't worry I will. lol you Amerique an WHS have conducted yourselves wonderfully. Aeon  Insane Ward  17:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I understand why you're attempting to withdraw from the arbitration but it saddens me. UCRGrad's and Insert-Belltower's conduct in the arbitration matches my interaction with them.  UCRGrad's modus operandi definitely seems to be to nit pick on trivial issues (such as the "plagarism" issue or the scientific validity of the ongoing strawpoll on the UCR talk page) until the opposition simply grows weary of the entire conversation at which point he declares victory and point any further conversation back to his "victory" and declares the issue settled.  Subtle insults and condenscension (such as his directing everyone to learn what plagarism and his recent accusations of sock-puppetry against a new user who has jumped into the UCR article) and made-up facts and figures (most students accused of plagarism don't know what it is - likely true but where is the evidence and the relevance?) are also liberally sprinkled through his arguments with his (former?) roommate Insert-Belltower agreeing with him on all major points.  It's particularly galling to me that he has implied several times in the past that I (and other editors) are unfit to edit the UCR article; I guess my Master's degree in Educational Leadership (specialization in College Student Personnel) just isn't good enough.
 * In any case, I understand the awkward position in which you find yourself and I appreciate all of your work and patience. Maybe one of us will continue attempting dispute resolution and this will prove useful or informative for future mediators, arbitrators, or administrators.  --ElKevbo 00:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record. This is not an accurate characterization. You don't know him or I. I don't make speculations like this about you. For all you know I have a PhD! Insert-Belltower 02:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I have not with drawn...it is going to Request for Comment. I will keep you posted and link you when it is filed. Aeon  Insane Ward  01:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You're aware there already is an article content RFC, right? --ElKevbo 02:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

User Conduct RfC not Article Aeon  Insane Ward  02:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, ok. Please let me know if I can help in any way!  --ElKevbo 03:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * hello elkevbo, to my observations ucrg's actions & rationales provide the most concrete evidence of [wp|own] violations. if i find any on ib's part i will add them, or if you know of any please add the info! links to early stage draft rfc texts are located on my and aeon's talk pages.--Amerique 22:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * UCRG conduct RFC
 * IB conduct RFC
 * I'd be happy if you could help with the gathering of evidence/information or the organizing of either of these conduct RFCs, following these examples here User Conduct RFCs.--Amerique 18:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_14
[moved from User:ElKevbo] Not sure where to put this, but thanks for being an understanding moderator =) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.227.149.242 (talk • contribs) 22:56, July 14, 2006

Link to "Queen's Guide" on Queen's University website
Hi there Just noticed the discrepency about the link for the "Queens University Guide"

That guide is not a website designed by any official source in the university, nor is it an university that is common source of information. In fact, I'm more concerned that the website http://www.queensuniversityguide.com/ is more of an effort to raise funds / generate personal revenue through the over-use of Google Ads than provide solid information to users. In addition, note how all the other listed links are somewhat a primary source for Queen's University - this website is more of a secondary resource. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.226.61.119 (talk • contribs) 18:56, July 16, 2006


 * Okay. I could understand an argument that the link should be removed on the grounds of commercialism or link spam (note that I am not signifying agreement with such an argument).  I'm afraid that for such an argument to hold up it would have to be relatively detailed and quite frankly I don't really think it's worth the time to construct such an argument but that's your call.
 * I objected to removing the link on the basis that it isn't an "official" Queens' website because there isn't nor should there be a requirement for external links. --ElKevbo 00:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, not a problem. Thanks for clarifying (I'm a new user so it's good to know these things).
 * To clarify, I would argue that http://www.queensuniversityguide.com/ does not conform to the following rules to some degree:


 * Links to be avoided #2: "Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research. (See Wikipedia:Reliable sources for further information on this guideline.)


 * - The respective website has a lot of opinions and has a lot of brushed up sentences, such as "Pretty much everyone at Queen's lives in rez in first year, and that's a good thing." It does not provide any further information already provided by the any other institutional websites. I would further argue that it is a very unreliable secondary source, it has the characteristics of a self-published website of being very misleading and sloppy. The website also doesn't talk about the university directly, (e.g. university history, etc), but rather, things to do while going to the university such as "drinking and shopping", which is not, in my opinion, the main topic of the article.


 * Links to be avoided #3: "A website that you own or maintain, even if the guidelines above imply that it should be linked to. This is because of neutrality and point-of-view concerns; neutrality is an important objective at Wikipedia, and a difficult one. If it is relevant and informative, mention it on the talk page and let other — neutral — Wikipedia editors decide whether to add the link."


 * - It may very well be that the publisher of the website added the link as this website is not a known website among Queen's students. Although, arguably, I cannot prove that the publisher added the link in by him/herself, but I do have strong suspicions because the publisher has also been posting ads to promote his/her website on livejournal and various blogs to gain traffic.


 * Links to be avoided #4: "Links that are added to promote a site, that primarily exist to sell products or services, with objectionable amounts of advertising', or that that require payment to view the relevant content. See External link spamming. "


 * - The respective website has three areas of advertising, the maximum allowed for any website using google ads. See https://www.google.com/adsense/policies


 * Let me know your opinions on this! (Sorry for not logging in previously) --Eddiehosa 01:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

My tone on the UCR talk page
I hope I'm not out of line in getting aggressive, but I feel the stonewalling has gone on long enough. We should call a spade a spade. Danny Lilithborne 05:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Have you been following the failed RfArb, failed advocacy, and the RFC(s) in the works? If not, I'll try to consolidate and summarize the information for you.  I think your comments indicate that your evaluation of the situation is very similar to my own and several other editors (namely WHS and Amerique).  I would warn you though that UCRGRad and Insert-Belltower, for all of their flaws, are both very intelligent and are very good at wikilawyering and walking a tight rope between adhering to the letter of wiki policies while completely breaking and ignoring their spirit.
 * At the moment, I'm waiting to see what comes of the RFC an advocate has begun to put together. Let me know if you've been following things and I'll fill you in.  --ElKevbo 05:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * From what I gather, the Arbitration failed because, among other things, an RFC was not attempted. As for the advocacy, I-B's advocate doubted that he was in fact a different person than UCRGrad, and was "fired".  And there's an ongoing RFC, which appears to be little more than a notice on a page for outside parties to weigh in on the issue.  So I do know a bit about the case. :)  I also know that despite their wikilawyering and such, they're rather transparent in their platform, and their intention (to basically filibuster the discussion until opposing sides basically gets tired and gives up). Danny Lilithborne 05:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Spot on, man. I don't think we planned or conducted our RfArb very well (I didn't think to add some of the things I put in the failed advocacy case, for one).  There has been an article content RFC for quite some time with little or no results (and I don't think we pointed that out in the RfArb, either).  Sigh... I think all of us involved in that RfArb are new to that process.
 * I think we're now in a good position to work on and file user conduct RFCs against both of them. I want to see what the advocate says as I hope it will carry significant weight that Insert-Belltower's former advocate is now helping us file a user conduct RFC against him (and hopefully UCRGrad but we might have to go it without the advocate on that one - I'm not sure and am waiting for a response from the advocate).
 * But I think we should keep doing our thing on the Talk and article page as I don't think waiting for these RFCs is necessary or helpful. Maybe, just maybe, we can start making positive progress without RFCs or other dispute resolution. I doubt it but it doesn't hurt to try.  If it doesn't work then perhaps it will give us very current and relevant examples to use in dispute resolution (such as UCRGrad's recent unilateral removal of a merge tag after it had been up for a day or two instead of waiting for others to comment - I plan on entering that as recent evidence of ownership of the article.  --ElKevbo 05:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'd like to see the investigation into the claim that UCRGrad and I-B are sockpuppets of each other. I didn't see an RFCU for either one. Danny Lilithborne 05:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll dig to see what I can find. I could be wrong but I made the same accusation myself several months ago when I first stumbled across this article.  --ElKevbo 05:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, I haven't dug through the RFUC logs/history yet but I suspect there may not be anything there. Apparently on May 6 I left a message on USER:Mackensen's Talk page as he had tagged both UCRGRad and Insert-Belltower as sockpuppets.  Mackensen, in turn, left me a message indicating that there was "nothing more [he] could do."  I took that to indicate that he or someone else had actually run a check user but now that I look back on everything that appears to be a baseless assumption on my part.
 * Well, son of a... It was confirmed that UCRGrad had at least one sockpuppet (USER:909er) actively "contributing" to the UCR article.  Dang, I never noticed that.  So both of these editors have used sockpppets in the not-too-distant past in this article.  Well, THAT'S getting added to the RFC. :)  --ElKevbo 06:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello Danny I'm Aeon and i was IB advocate. I started to suspect IB might be a sock of UCRGrad or Vice Versa, so I consulted Steve the other Advocate and current Acting AMA Coordinator.  I grew very very frustrated at both IB and UCRgrad, neiter would own up to there actions but expected me to support there behavior.  An Advocate doesn't have to support the whole issue, and I was in there best intrest to just admit it and appolgize.  They stone walled the AMA process and me and steve closed it and began the RfC process.  Both are now trying to get me trown out of the AMA (Which I think is kind of funny, I have no idea why I do) which tells me a lot about them personally.   Aeon  Insane Ward  06:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh wow, that sucks! Please let me know if I can do anything to help.  Although I question your spelling abilities :) I think you did a fine job under some pretty trying circumstances.  --ElKevbo 06:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't Worry the acting Coordinator thinks I did a good job to, and he will soon be the Full Coordinator as soon as the AMA has an election. I'm not going to be cowd down while trying to help solve this issue.  Aeon  Insane Ward  06:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I noticed that the administrator who believed the article presented a legitimate POV in the RFArb did not respond to your request for his reasoning on your user page. Did he do so through email? Because if not, I'm going to ask him.  I fail to see the legitimacy of the weasel terms that fill the current UCR page. Danny Lilithborne 06:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * On Amerique's copy of the failed RfArb Fred has "UCRGrad presents a signifcant point of view" as his reason for rejecting the request. That's the only response I ever got from him (and I think he only added the reason after I specifically asked).  --ElKevbo 06:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * A careful reading of the failed RFArb tells me the admin believed that UCRGrad presented a good POV on the RFArb page itself, not necessarily the UCR page. Is it possible that the admins are not required to read the pages in question? Danny Lilithborne 06:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess it's possible. I'm not terribly familiar with the process.  I would hope not!
 * On the other hand, telling an admin that he or she just didn't read the case enough or in the right way doesn't seem like a way to win over his or her heart. :) --ElKevbo 06:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I left him a message. Hope he responds. Danny Lilithborne 06:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * hey elkevbo, i've significantly updated the ucrg rfc. aeon is still working on i-b's, but i will be continuing to edit both projects, for a possible filing date of thursday.--Amerique 21:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the RFCU. I want it known that it doesn't entirely convince me, though. UCRGrad raised the possibility of different people using the same computer, but it's just as likely (if not more so) that the same person can use more than one computer. Danny Lilithborne 21:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

hello ElKevbo,

Thanks for your great work on the UCRGrad RFC. I've looked over Aeon's work on IB's RFC, and it seems structured so that it is not an RFC on IB primarily but on the fallout from his advocacy case for not admiting to have used sockpuppets in the past. I've looked over I-B's contribution history, and there doesn't seem to be much showing a sustained pattern of conduct violations on his part. While he has been incivil occasionally, all he mainly does is revert pages and support UCRGrad. How do you suggest structuring IB's RFC to support the UCRG RFC with regards to the meatpuppet alligation in particular?--Amerique 23:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I haven't taken the time to look over the IB RFC yet but even without looking at it I'm pretty sure that we have a much weaker case against IB than we do against UCRGrad. In my experience, IB simply participates less than UCRGrad and typically says/does much less inflammatory things.  I think a "successful" RFC against him will be much more difficult.  --ElKevbo 23:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello ElKevbo,
 * I've proposed restructuring IB's RFC entirely around the "meatpuppet" allegation. Aeon thinks it is a good idea. The RFC will be on whether the Wikipedia community agrees IB's generally tamer actions in support of UCRG constitute "meatpuppetry." The RFCs will probably have to be delayed a day or so to gather and structure evidence.--Amerique 23:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds good! --ElKevbo 02:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That's a good idea. Honestly, most of your quotes are at least several months old and the newer ones don't quite fit into the violations you guys are trying to prove.  The sockpuppet allegation was a pretty reasonable attack on me, until you guys realized that an RFCU already proved that I am not the same person as Insert-Belltower.  I guess the next logical step is to argue that we are meatpuppets because we agree on pretty much every issue...but how does that differ from what Amerique has done with WHS, ElKevbo, Teknosoul02, Szyslak, and Danny?  All of you basically agree on every single issue as well (literally), and perhaps more damaging, is the evidence on each of your talk pages that shows how Amerique has repeatedly prompted each of these individuals to respond or comment on XYZ page.  If anything, these types of actions are unquestionably meatpuppetry.  I'm just wondering what you guys think before I respond with my own RfC. UCRGrad 19:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Bring it on, UCRGrad. Let me guess, IB will be seconding your's, right?--Amerique 20:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

No. IB has his/her own plan. You know what they say in The Princess Bride, don't you?Insert-Belltower 01:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello El Kevbo,

Please look over the current RFCs and tell me or Aeon what you think. I was thinking IB's could benefit from adding whatever civility violations he's also committed, as all the evidence currently on his page goes to substantiate the sock/meatpuppet allegations. We are thinking of filing these tonight or tommorrow.--Amerique 20:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Francespeabody draft RFC
I removed the certifying "signatures" from the draft Francespeabody RFC. I just think it's right or proper to endorse a draft RFC when it could possibly change significantly before being filed.

Please let me know if you'd like to be specifically notified when I officially file the RFC (likely in a day or two). Ai.kefu and Dystopos, I'll be sure to notify you both (since it was your names I removed from the draft). Thanks for your help! --ElKevbo 02:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for drafting this, ElKevbo. I'd very much appreciate a heads up when this RfC is filed. -Fsotrain09 03:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome. I'll let you know when it's filed.  --ElKevbo 04:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I stumbled onto the article and read the discussion. Although I'm a new member of the Wiki universe and haven't done hardly anything in the way of contributions, I would agree with the RFC for Francespeabody. The conduct in the discussion and attempts to create a useful article alone lead me to the conclusion there is no place for such a user on that article. --Cymbrogi 19:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Link to "Queen's Guide" on Queen's University website
Hi there Just noticed the discrepency about the link for the "Queens University Guide"

That guide is not a website designed by any official source in the university, nor is it an university that is common source of information. In fact, I'm more concerned that the website http://www.queensuniversityguide.com/ is more of an effort to raise funds / generate personal revenue through the over-use of Google Ads than provide solid information to users. In addition, note how all the other listed links are somewhat a primary source for Queen's University - this website is more of a secondary resource. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.226.61.119 (talk • contribs) 18:56, July 16, 2006


 * Okay. I could understand an argument that the link should be removed on the grounds of commercialism or link spam (note that I am not signifying agreement with such an argument).  I'm afraid that for such an argument to hold up it would have to be relatively detailed and quite frankly I don't really think it's worth the time to construct such an argument but that's your call.
 * I objected to removing the link on the basis that it isn't an "official" Queens' website because there isn't nor should there be a requirement for external links. --ElKevbo 00:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, not a problem. Thanks for clarifying (I'm a new user so it's good to know these things).
 * To clarify, I would argue that http://www.queensuniversityguide.com/ does not conform to the following rules to some degree:


 * Links to be avoided #2: "Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research. (See Wikipedia:Reliable sources for further information on this guideline.)


 * - The respective website has a lot of opinions and has a lot of brushed up sentences, such as "Pretty much everyone at Queen's lives in rez in first year, and that's a good thing." It does not provide any further information already provided by the any other institutional websites. I would further argue that it is a very unreliable secondary source, it has the characteristics of a self-published website of being very misleading and sloppy. The website also doesn't talk about the university directly, (e.g. university history, etc), but rather, things to do while going to the university such as "drinking and shopping", which is not, in my opinion, the main topic of the article.


 * Links to be avoided #3: "A website that you own or maintain, even if the guidelines above imply that it should be linked to. This is because of neutrality and point-of-view concerns; neutrality is an important objective at Wikipedia, and a difficult one. If it is relevant and informative, mention it on the talk page and let other — neutral — Wikipedia editors decide whether to add the link."


 * - It may very well be that the publisher of the website added the link as this website is not a known website among Queen's students. Although, arguably, I cannot prove that the publisher added the link in by him/herself, but I do have strong suspicions because the publisher has also been posting ads to promote his/her website on livejournal and various blogs to gain traffic.


 * Links to be avoided #4: "Links that are added to promote a site, that primarily exist to sell products or services, with objectionable amounts of advertising', or that that require payment to view the relevant content. See External link spamming. "


 * - The respective website has three areas of advertising, the maximum allowed for any website using google ads. See https://www.google.com/adsense/policies


 * Let me know your opinions on this! (Sorry for not logging in previously) --Eddiehosa 01:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 15:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

UCRG Conduct RFC Filed
Thanks for all your hard work in helping this process along.--Amerique 16:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

IB RfC
RfC

IB's RfC has been filed. If you could go there and endorse or certify that would be cool Aeon  Insane Ward  19:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

thanks for the fix. Aeon Insane Ward  19:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

UCRGrad reverted the RfC. I have moved his responses to the response section. That is where they go lol. Aeon Insane Ward  17:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Speaking of which, is there anything we can do to get him to post in the correct section of the page? I'm not exactly eager to get into a revert war with him on a RfC page. --WHS 17:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Admin notice board, perhaps? I hate spending time on this as it's such piddly little crap but that's his modus operandi.  If nothing else, this serves as further concrete evidence of his disruption of Wikipedia and inability to follow simple rules/policies.  --ElKevbo 17:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I just looked at the RfC again, and it looks like he just copied and pasted every charge we've listed against him, apparently with the intent to respond to each one of them directly. At least he's posting it in the right section now I guess?
 * Oh, and I'm not sure if we've ever directly interacted with each other, so hi. --WHS 17:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, what he's doing is still incorrect. What goes in the "Response" section is a summary.  Threaded replies go on the Talk page.  I'll let him continue making a complete mess of the page as I think that's pretty strong evidence of his inability or unwillingness to adhere to Wikipedia policy particularly since several of us have pointed this out to him.  --ElKevbo 17:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Yep just let be. I reverted him then figured out what he was doing so I reverted back. I will let the outside view handle it. Aeon Insane Ward  17:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I'm going to slightly edit the info you added to the RfC, as I believe UCRGrad's admission was referring to his sockpuppet/meatpuppet, 909er, and not I-B.--WHS 18:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it's unclear but okay. --ElKevbo 19:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

EyesOfFire Problems
I'm having some trouble with EyesOfFire on a couple of articles and would appreciate some assistance. I'm bringing this to your attention because you've already come in contact with this situation and because you're much more of a veteran Wikipedian in comparison to myself. You recently removed an edit by EyesOfFire from Boise Bible College, calling it 'uncited assertions with little relevance to the article'. EyesOfFire has already re-inserted those comments. What you're probably not aware of is that EyesOfFire posted the exact same comments in two other articles as well, Real Life Ministries & Jim Putman.

These comments are clearly not written from a NPOV and have some factual errors as well. Someone else deleted EyesOfFire's comments from Real Life Ministries and EyesOfFire quickly reverted the changes. As the original author of the article, I made a good faith effort to resolve this on EyesOfFire's talk page, but did not receive any response there. Others have also removed EyesOfFire's comments because they're clearly biased and inaccurate but they have also been quickly reverted by EyesOfFire. Because I hadn't received any response from EyesOfFire, I went ahead and edited their comments on Real Life Ministries to reflect the facts and a NPOV. I also deleted their comments from Jim Putman because, besides the inaccuracies, it had little relevance in that article.

EyesOfFire has since reverted all these changes to their original comments and also posted a bunch of 'bull' on my user page(not my talk page) about how I am the one that is biased and censoring them. I'm not sure how to proceed at this point, EyesOfFire clearly has an agenda and is not interested in the policies of Wikipedia.

Please Advise, Bg357 04:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that his or her edits need to be removed as they are unsupported by any evidence (not to mention pretty serious accusations). I think we're going about this the right way with polite messages on his or her Talk page.  Let's see how he or she reacts now that multiple people are weighing in on the situation.  I'll definitely keep an eye on things.
 * Additionally, I think that the Real Life Ministries article and the Jim Putman article both probably qualify for deletion as they appear to be relatively non-noteable. I'm not too eager to nominate them for deletion right now as I haven't really conducted any research.  --ElKevbo 04:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Obviously, the greatest feature of Wikipedia can also be its biggest weakness when someone with an agenda & a brazen attitude rears their ugly head. =|


 * Please do look into the noteability of the articles in question. I authored the Real Life Ministries article as an off-shoot of the List of megachurches article.  There are more than 50 other churches on that list that also have their own article.  As the fastest growing Christian church in the U.S., I think Real Life is certainly more noteable than many others that also have articles.
 * As for the Jim Putman article, you're probably right. It isn't terribly noteable; It just seemed like a good place to put some personal information on the Senior Pastor that I thought would be out of place in the Real Life Ministries article. I may have been wrong.
 * Bg357 06:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

HI
Hi ElKevbo, (can I call you Kev?) I just wanted to mention that since you're a participant at this discussion, blanking another editor's comments, even on the talkpage, might be considered inappropriate, and it seems to be unnecassarily inflammatory under the circumstances. I'm not trying to criticize, but I'm hoping that you'd be willing to revert the blanking after thinking it over a bit. Thanks in advance :) --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 04:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm the one who put the comments there in the first place. UCRGrad was making his or her edits elsewhere in the page (you can see a bit of the discussion on his or her Talk page and above on mine) and I was moving them over to the Talk page in an attempt to keep things organized.  He or she finally settled on putting all of his or her responses on the main page of the RFC.  Thus I removed what I had moved there as it was (a) redundant (the exact same things - albeit perhaps more up-to-date - are on the RFC page) and (b) potentially confusing.  Does that make sense?  --ElKevbo 04:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Heh heh, consider me clarified, not to mention a bit red in the face. I hope you can understand why I was concerned (since I thought they were UCRG's postings), and I hope I didn't sound like a DICK. Thanks for your patience :) --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 05:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey, no problem! I appreciate you keeping me honest.  --ElKevbo 05:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Mustaine
Would you mind terribly reverting IP Address on List of Welsh Americans ala Mustaine? Greatly appreciated Mad Jack 05:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, never mind! You were ahead of me. Thanks! Mad Jack 05:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I think, but am not sure, that he has sort of "left" - if you go by his user page. Don't these RFC's usually take a very long time? Maybe administrators' message board is better, quicker, get a quick block for 24 or whatever hours and get it over with. Mad Jack 05:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You're right - that's probably a better idea. He or she is also about to run up against the 3RR if he or she keeps this up...  --ElKevbo 05:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, he/she has already broken 3rr on List of Welsh Americans - check it out - 4 reverts in 24 hours. So we can get him blocked as is. Mad Jack 05:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, he definitely has not left. So yes, we should just get him blocked for 3rr at the moment. Mad Jack 05:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Go for it! Make sure to mention the blatant uncivility and repeated removal of an entire section on an article's Talk page.  --ElKevbo 05:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Did I miss something, or what exactly is this new "evidence"? He linked to some website that says Mustaine is a Welsh last name, which is fine for an article on the last name Mustaine. But the interview he linked to with Dave Mustaine himself didn't seem to mention anything about being Welsh? Mad Jack 16:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The interview to which he links has Mustaine claiming a family motto or something like that. It's circumstantial evidence but it's a bit better than what he or she had before.  Quite frankly, I just don't have the time to fight with this editor right now.  I'm getting a bit burnt out on constantly fighting people who are either abusing Wikipedia or clearly ignoring the rules or making up their own. :(  --ElKevbo 16:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Sigh, indeed. But heck, if we let one of these people win, it opens the door for all the others. So I guess I'll keep at it until he presents a source that says exactly what he wants to say in the article. Mad Jack 17:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

See what happens when you disrupt Wikipedia to make a point about your masculinity? You're loving this abusive relationship. ElKevbo has it right, I suppose. Why not legitimately edit for good reasons? Look up all those edits about those claimed to be Irish American Catholics, or any other dual religious-ethnic stereotyping done on the Wikipedia. At least you will save millions of people from prejudice. You "Mad Jack", would rather hound me until the day I die. This is why I utter contempt and foul language. At least Elkevbo was nice about it when he did involve himself. You think you know it all, no matter what is shown before you. You are the type of guy who would argue that Dave Mustaine doesn't use the toilet, simply because you don't have a fucking source. Like I said, get a life! Furthermore, why do you insist on keeping unsupported versions of articles anyways? If you demand that the article be in "proper shape", then support that version with sources. If somebody adds to the pot of knowledge, it need not be a threat to your bubble-world. Be reminded that Wikipedia articles are never finished; this is a truly evolutionary process. Wikipedia is supposed to support a diversity of information, to "flesh out" the subject matter in depth and present an almost 3-D atmosphere. Most encyclopedias are flat/matte and uninteresting, but Wikipedia has glossy and interesting text. If you choose to gut every article, then it actually cheapens the purpose upon which Wikipedia was founded and the chief reason there are so many Wiki-addicts contributing. Just because you have not personally undertaken a background search on certain people, does not mean that your perception must block the eyes of those wishing to travel further than you prefer to. Let not your bias stand in the way of a community effort. Everybody has their own facts researched; mine at one time was the lyrics and guitar tabulature of Megadeth. I was surprised to know the speed of one of their songs, which I conveyed to others I thought might like to know. Now, I'm interested in Mustaine's personal heritage and wish to share what I know. Of course, not everybody cared about the beats per minute of Rust In Peace...Polaris and they might have given the same attitude that Wikipedia does about notability standards. Then again, just who are we "marketing free information" to? In order to counter systemic bias, we have to broaden our horizons. It will only impress more fans and visitors, which increases our credibility. It is your choice to see it as "selling out", but there is only one of you and there are a whole lot of other people with different perspectives or focuses... IP Address 22:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Uh, okay? You haven't convinced me of anything except that you are extremely defensive, somewhat paranoid, and dismissive of one of the key policies of Wikipedia which forbids original research.  Wikipedia is simply not the appropriate place to introduce your original research.  I'm sure it's high quality research and I encourage you to seek publication elsewhere.  Once it's published, then come back and add the information to Wikipedia.  Until then, it needs to stay out.  It's not personal and it's not a swipe at the quality of your research - it's simply how Wikipedia works.  --ElKevbo 22:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not original research. Prove that it is original research. Prove that Dave Mustaine is not of Welsh heritage. When somebody claims their coat of arms; it's usually pretty serious stuff. You may not think that sort of thing is relevant in the 21st century, but Mustaine apparently does think it has something to do with his heritage. That enough is proof and any objection could only be academic and theoretical. It is not I who is engaging in spurious attitudes here; it is you by denying the horse's mouth. I see the Richard Gere article holds him as Anglo-Irish and Methodist, but there is no attempt to cite that at all. I on the other hand, have provided a slew of odds and ends to support my case. Odds and ends may not seem like much to you, but the fact is that not many people care about Dave Mustaine, least of all his ethnic heritage. That much anybody who knows about him can tell you. People usually do not entertain the thought of musician heritages, save for oddballs like Lenny Kravitz who make a big deal about his own. Most ethnic categories are provided for actors and actresses, or politicians. It is not strange that sources on Mustaine's heritage are slim. Therefore, we should go with what is available. There are no indications of his heritage being otherwise. Let us not make mountains out of molehills, but bricks into houses. IP Address 23:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The burden of proof is on those who want something in article, not on those who do not. If you want to call Mustaine a Welsh-American or say he is of Welsh ancestry, you must find a source that explicitly says so. You can not deduce it from anything that in your, mine, or anyone else's opinion would make him that. Mad Jack 23:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

It is not a deduction of opinion; it is an understanding by reading his own goddamned statement which qualifies as evidence! You're just being difficult because I made personal attacks and now you'll never accept anything I provide. IP Address 23:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Dude, you really need to take a deep breath and calm down. Jack is absolutely right that what you're doing is original research and he's correct in enforcing this core Wikipedia policy.  You're also balancing on the edge of violating the 3RR on multiple articles.  (Jack, I haven't checked but I suspect you are, too.)  Chill out, let the changes remain out of the article (since there seem to be more editors "voting" against it right now), and let the issue work itself out on the appropriate Talk page(s).  Try an RFC or a straw poll to get some input from neutral third parties.  --ElKevbo 23:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate this concilatory aproach from you ElKevbo. My only demand is, that if Dave Mustaine's heritage be removed, then so do those lot of celebrities and especially non-notables have their ethnic section expunged for sake of these same demands you place onto me. I ain't fucking defending blanket labeling of anonymous people left and right. I chose Mustaine because it had occurred to me, through his statements and several other factors (such as personal appearance, accent and identification with stereotypes) that he is Welsh. When sources indirectly state the obvious, why should it be seen as original research? IP Address 23:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The bar in Wikipedia is that facts must be directly stated in a verifiable source. I think your cited source for this is close enough to the line between "unclear" and "clear" that I'm not terribly eager to jump in and rule one way or the other, particularly since my knowledge of geneaology and ancestry are nonexistent.  I don't think it's necessarily fair to demand that particular Wikipedia editors take responsibility for all of the edits of other editors; we're only human and we can only deal with one article at a time.  The premise of your argument, that we should be consistent in our actions and rationale, is a fair one and one I hope we all uphold.  I just don't think it's fair to try to stretch that principle to require that particular editors be held responsible for an unreasonable number of articles with whom they may have never had contact.
 * Seriously - I respect your research and your knowledge in this area. This just isn't the place to publish your findings, particularly those which involve detailed logic or steps which may confuse editors and readers who, like myself, are not familiar with the intricacies of geneaology.  We must avoid even the appearance of impropriety, right?  I empathize with you.  I can't share much of my own research with Wikipedia until I've gone through the process of submitting it and having it accepted for publication.  It's a long process and that may have the tendency to deaden excitment and keep Wikipedia from being on the cutting-edge of research and findings.
 * Please, consider calling a truce in the edit war and seeking some input from neutral third parties. I think it would help all of us if we stepped back for a while and came back to all of this tomorrow.  It's only Wikipedia - it will still be here tomorrow. :)  --ElKevbo 23:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Please Use Edit Summaries
When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this: The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. haha169 19:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I see that you're a relatively new user who was just granted access to an anti-vandalism tool. Was this message placed here by mistake?  --ElKevbo 22:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Mustaine
Can you please revert all the Mustaine edits? (I am no longer able). I think we need to show IP Address that he can not just contribute unsourced material on a regular basis. Mad Jack 23:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I asked IP Address to please cease fire and let the edits sit for a bit so we can cool off. I sympathize with your efforts to enforce the OR policy but I also think it would be more than a little hypocritical of me to ask him or her to back off and let things sit and not do the same myself.  I hope you understand my point of view!  --ElKevbo 23:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, and as for all these diplomatic processes you suggested above - I don't go for these. Too many people seem to think that Wikipedia is a debate society - and if your side "wins" congrats! It goes in the article, regardless of what the sources said. They are wrong. Wikipedia is striclty source-based, and the opinions of Wiki editors are completely, totally (and thankfully so) irrelevant. If you don't want to revert it, I guess that's OK, but I will keep reverting it within 3RR as much as I can. I've had too much of all this "ethnic pride" stuff on Wikipedia that boils down to a lot of original research, especially on the X-American lists. These people either have a source, or they don't. It's 100% or nothing. Mad Jack 23:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * By the way, I am actually involved in the other X-American lists that IP was talking about. I've been chiefly responsible for properly sourcing them under all of Wiki's policies during these past few months. That's how I got involved in this - IP adding an unsourced name to the meticiulously sourced list of Welsh-Americans. Mad Jack 00:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 24th


You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. --Michael Snow 04:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Mistake
Sorry, I accidentally clicked the wrong button. --haha169 16:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay. No big deal!  --ElKevbo 16:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

OR on Marine Corps
How does "Due to the small size of the Marine Corps, it cooperates with the Navy on many institutional support services. ... The Marine Corps supplies Drill Sergeants to Navy OCS to instill discipline in officer candidates." Constitute original research?

The Corps is too small to justify an independent scholarship programs, and it is well established that DI's at OCS are there for....Drill....whose purpose is to instill discipline. You are justified in requesting a citation for the former but the latter is well known; you could just slap a tag instead--Mmx1 22:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * 1. Please cite a source that says that the Marine Corps employs Navy personnel because it is "due to small size."
 * 2. Please cite a source that says that Marine Corps Drill Instructors are used in Navy OCS "to instill discipline."
 * I don't doubt the veracity of the second statement but neither of the two statements are supported by sources. --ElKevbo 23:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 31st


You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 02:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)