User talk:ElKevbo/Archive 13

Page protection
I was asked if I could protect those articles. They are the targets of a bizarre, long-term vandal who edits anonymously from Fort Lauderdale. Did I miss something regarding release of protection? PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * With respect to semi-protecting those articles, I simply not seeing nearly enough edits to justify even semi-protection. If there are oversighted or redacted edits that I can't see then I apologize.
 * And are you asking about or aware of the end of the pending changes trial? ElKevbo (talk) 00:55, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I guess that I was not aware of that, no. The vandalism is infrequent but chronic. I'll open them up since it seems that I inadvertently goofed. PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, cool. Thanks!  If it turns out that I'm wrong and those articles do indeed need protection, I'll let you know.  ElKevbo (talk) 01:05, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

All set. It looks as if I missed the big pink banner on the protect/unprotect page. Thanks for alerting me (blush). PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Your nomination of for deletion
I would just like to comment on your nomination. Where you asked my why at the discussion, I left a response for that. I can also diagnose you with a mild case of Adminitis. You nominated the template for deletion because probably you think that admins are more equal (or better) than regular users. This is a classical symptom of Adminitis. Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) T or M/Sign mine 06:11, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw your response. I don't have anything to add to it; my position has been made (too) abundantly clear.  And my responses are bordering on annoying badgering already so I won't respond there.
 * And you're completely wrong about my motivations (and I don't much care that you've not only wrongly assumed things about me but had the cheek to label me with your false assumptions). I think that many admins and a handful of non-admins believe that admins are "more equal (or better) than regular users."  I certainly don't hold to that because it's not true and we shouldn't encourage it.  I know it's a hopeless battle because the admins hold nearly all of the power (who is going to close the TfD discussion?) but it's still one to be fought.  ElKevbo (talk) 06:50, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Talk:University
You removed another editor's comments at Talk:University. The fact that the comments were unsigned does not give you the right to remove them, whether you happen to disagree with them or not. You are, of course, perfectly entitled to reply to the comments, and to remind the IP to sign future comments. - David Biddulph (talk) 11:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Then I went back one revision too far as I just meant to restore the bot-imposed signature. Sorry about that!  ElKevbo (talk)!
 * Or maybe I got confused with the other Talk page to which the same author copied the same message...? ElKevbo (talk) 12:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Becker College
ElKevbo,

I'd like to add pertinent information to the Becker College page. Please advise

Yakeeb (talk) 14:10, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not in control of the Becker College article (we all are!) but I'd be happy to provide guidance and advice. Can you please be more specific in how I can help?  ElKevbo (talk) 15:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Are any of sections proposed by rdersimonian usable?

(68.112.246.2 (talk) 15:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC))
 * Much of the prose looks ok to me. It's all very light in references and ideally that would be corrected but much of it appears to be non-contentious material.  The lists and the faculty bios don't seem too appropriate, IMHO. ElKevbo (talk) 16:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Third opinion requested
ElKevbo, if you could please provide a third opinion on merging article Eastern Michigan University. I have done a lot of review on universities templates and looking at other school page setups. I feel that having a separate student life page Eastern Michigan University student life is not needed. Given other large universities don't even carry separate pages. As well, I compared the article with universities that are listed on Wiki universities and a good examples is Florida State University. The student life article was merged with the main university. Please provide a third opinion if this "student life" page is needed, I would like to delete it. I would appreciate your expertise. Pwojdacz (talk) 06:00, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

FYI
I replied to your comment. Thanks for the helpful suggestion. Much appreciated. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 17:58, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Weimar College
Your input would be appreciated here. Thanks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Fountainviewkid_reported_by_User:BelloWello_.28Result:_.29 --Fountainviewkid (talk) 04:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry but I don't have anything to add. I think that both of you were a bit aggressive in your editing.  Under normal circumstances that might be ok but given the (bizarrely) contentious nature of this topic, you both should have proceeded a bit more cautiously and perhaps backed off to work out things in Talk once it started getting heated.  I don't think your actions warrant a block but I can understand if an impartial admin believes otherwise.
 * No worries. Live and learn.  Even if you do get blocked the article will still be here when you get back. ElKevbo (talk) 04:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Marked a user and link as Spam
Hello, You marked the user Emjohns and the website DigitalNC.org as spam for inserting external links. However, the link is not spam, and is linking directly to materials related to the wikipedia page. If you more closely examine the external link, I do not believe that the link can be classified as spam. Emjohns (talk) 17:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)Emjohns
 * I disagree. We sparingly add external links to articles unless they are references supporting material in the article.  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a directory of links.
 * You can probably get additional opinions and input from other editors if you post a question here. ElKevbo (talk) 17:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The point is to make the material accessible to people interested in the pages I've posted on. Can you at least please stop deleting my edits until we get further opinions? Emjohns (talk) 17:42, 13 June 2011 (UTC)Emjohns
 * Please stop making the edits until further discussion. At least one other editor has also objected to them so this is not just my opinion in conflict with yours. ElKevbo (talk) 18:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand, but it seems only fair that you stop deleting the edits I have already made until I get more responses. I posted a question on the link you sent me, and would appreciate some understanding since I am new at this and I don't find the policies entirely clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emjohns (talk • contribs) 18:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know about Emjohns other edits, but I too was surprised to see that he and his link to DigitalNC.org was marked as spam on the page "List of Online Newspaper Archives". As the title of the page suggests, it is a list and the list is composed of online archives, which will of course be links to those external sites. I think that your logic that "We sparingly add external links to articles unless they are references supporting material in the article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a directory of links" does not really apply to this type of Wikipedia page. If it did, then all of the links on the page should be deleted and the page itself deleted since it is not encyclopedic. I use this page all the time and found Emjohns link just as useful as all the other external links on the page. Harnlp (talk) 05:58, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Are you an admin?
Because your warning did not effect any change from Carthage44 and something needs to be done. I don't think I can revert again because if my calculations are correct, that would cross the 3RR threshold. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Report him or her here. ElKevbo (talk) 19:12, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Nevermind; he or she has already been blocked. ElKevbo (talk) 19:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Greensboro College Seal.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Greensboro College Seal.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 19:06, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

FAR notice
nominated Duke University for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Dana boomer (talk) 21:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Request for help
Hello: I am an unregistered editor, and I attempted to edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=College_tuition_in_the_United_States&action=history where I see you have edited recently, but 'Nasnema' just now apparently vandalised the page, and reverted my edits, falsely claiming that I did not cite my sources; I did cite my sources.

I am a religious person who believes in God, and I do not wish to cause unnecessary pain or trouble for 'Nasnema,' but also, I must defend the truth and what is right: It would appear that this user is valdalising this page, & falsely claiming that I am --which makes a good case that I should not join Wikipedia. Could you please look into it? Thank you71.101.40.113 (talk) 18:05, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think another editor already took care of this. If I'm wrong or if you still need help, please let me know!  If you do, please be aware that I'm traveling right now and may be a bit slow to respond. ElKevbo (talk) 22:02, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

SPI case
You may (or may not) be interested in this SPI case since you reverted at least one of the suspected sock's edits and encouraged them to discuss the change on the talk page. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 20:24, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with your concerns and course of action. ElKevbo (talk) 22:32, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Seal issue at Talk:Illinois College‎
I'm thinking it might be time to revive this idea: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Universities/Archive_7. --GrapedApe (talk) 03:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't feel strongly about the issue. I am merely acting to enforce the current consensus; I do not necessarily agree with it.  If it were up to me, we would not be using college and university seals very often in articles because they are not recognizable and useful to the general public. ElKevbo (talk) 06:50, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Why do you insist on messing with the Kentucky Basketball Page?
Seriously, you are not a UK basketball historian, nor are you a UK fan. My statistics are accurate, and the sources used for all my statistics have been verified through all the sources I listed. I don't get you, and the only thing I can think of is that you seem to have some obsession or vendetta against UK Basketball. Tell you what, if you can PROVE through your own sources and research that since 1939, some other school other than Kentucky has more Sweet-16 Appearances, then I'll listen. However, the fact is, you simply can't. In lieu of this, how about stopping your quest to screw with a page that you know nothing about? In short, either refute my statistics with evidence to the contrary or shut up.

Jonathan B. Fisher jbfwildcat@yahoo.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbfwildcat (talk • contribs) 20:22, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't care much about the stats in the article. I object to your repeated insertion of the absurd phrase claiming that the stats are maintained and constantly updated (although I am happy that you no longer insist on inserting the phrase "The List" into the article).  Such a phrase has no place whatsoever in Wikipedia articles given its nature as a constantly-updated community project.
 * I strongly advise you to (a) stop edit-warring against consensus and policy (b) using multiple accounts and (c) attacking other editors. You're probably going to be blocked (again) and eventually banned if you don't change your behavior. ElKevbo (talk) 20:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Academic dishonesty
The edit which I made today sought to provide evidence to support a statement which stated citation needed. I found no empirical evidence which included the link between student plagiarism and the Internet but did find the statistic which supported the growth in academic interest in student plagiarism over a ten year period. The evidence was published in a report this week as part of a project promoting good practice in plagiarism education. The report is probably too new to be listed in a Google Scholar search. Rather than delete the whole paragraph, which has been in place for a long while, it might be better to either revert to the previous version or find an alternative source to the point made. (Vincentvangolf (talk) 21:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC))
 * IIRC, my objection to the cited sources was to the fact they are unpublished. They may be correct and valid but until they're published they're not reliable (or peer-reviewed, either).  If you can find other sources that support the assertions and are reliable, please feel free to add the material back to the article.
 * Incidentally, some of the material that I deleted wasn't very good. It's just poor form to write that a research topic is "in vogue" in an encyclopedia article.  We don't need to be stiff and overly formal but our writing should be better than that. :) ElKevbo (talk) 23:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I refrained from editing the original language except to delete the information that the source could not support and adding the evidence from the report. However, I agree that the language could be improved. The new source has been published by iParadigms Europe, a leading organisation in plagiarism education who promote the use of a text matching tool called Turnitin across Europe. All material published by the organisation is reviewed by plagiarism experts. (Vincentvangolf (talk) 08:13, 12 August 2011 (UTC))
 * I'm sorry, I didn't see where the articles had actually been reviewed, edited, and published. Can you please tell me the name or location where they were published?  Thanks!  ElKevbo (talk) 15:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The article is available at the following URLs http://eprints.hud.ac.uk/11242/1/ireland_03.pdf and is fourth in the list of 'best practice' reports at the website http://www.plagiarismadvice.org/resources/community-best-practice. Vincentvangolf (talk) 08:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I know it's available on that website but where has it been published? In what venue with a reputation for accuracy was it reviewed and then made available to others?  Or was it merely self-published?  Yes, placing the document on a website is technically "publication" but that doesn't lend it any strength as fair as notability or quality.  ElKevbo (talk) 14:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

As mentioned already it has been peer-reviewed and published by an organisation called iParadigms Europe at the second URL mentioned in the previous entry. If you investigate this organisation you'll find out that it is trusted in the area of plagiarism. If you have not heard of the organisation here is the URL to the home page http://iparadigms.com/. I can find no way for authors to simply upload output to the organisation's sites. I have also entered the title into a Google Scholar search and it now appears there too. (Vincentvangolf (talk) 09:08, 20 August 2011 (UTC))
 * I'm sorry but I'm still not understanding how this document was reviewed and published. As far as I can tell, this document is only available on the University of Huddersfield's website.  It doesn't seem to have been published in a journal, conference proceedings, or book.  And I'm afraid I don't see any evidence that it was reviewed or edited in any way given that it doesn't seem to have actually been published.
 * All of this doesn't mean it's a bad source per se, just that it's not very reliable by our standards since it seems to be a self-published source. ElKevbo (talk) 16:33, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, I think I found the information for which I was asking. Here it says: "Following a call for content the following resources were peer reviewed and selected for inclusion on the website by our International Advisory Board as a reflection of best practice in addressing plagiarism and proactively promoting the the value of rewarding assessment techniques." Given that the advisory board seems to only have three members and that this company is very much in the business of promoting its own products using these papers, I'm still not comfortable saying that this is a terribly good source.  You would be much better off finding and using sources not published by a company with a vested interest in the topic.  I'm positive there are good, peer-reviewed articles out there written by experts and published in venues with minimal or no conflicts of interest. ElKevbo (talk) 16:40, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

crown tutoring copyright, I am the owner
you have removed my entries for copyright on the tutoring pages, I am the copyright owner, I wrote the table and am the owner of Crown Tutoring, INC. What would you like to see? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brodaiga (talk • contribs) 16:08, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is a Free encyclopedia. To keep it Free, we only accept material that is in the public domain.  If your material is already in the public domain or licensed under an appropriate license (CC-BY-SA, GFDL, etc.) then please accept my apologies for overreacting and feel free to replace the material!  If you would like to donate your material to Wikipedia, this page should be very helpful, especially the "Granting us permission to copy material already online" section."
 * Please let me know if you have other questions! ElKevbo (talk) 16:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome to copy the material of my webpage for this article. I believe that is it helpful to the topic and adds to the other tables on the page, also, that content was there for 2.5 years before some random users spammed it with their info and tables and took it off, I simply noticed today it was missing and replaced it. --Brodaiga (talk) 20:38, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Please re-read this page, particularly the "Granting us permission to copy material already online" section. We need firm evidence that you are indeed the copyright holder; I'm sure you can understand that although we'd like to take your word for it we can't because we can't be sure who "you" are~ :) ElKevbo (talk) 05:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
jsfouche &#9789;&#9790; Talk 20:13, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Texas A&M Campus Setting
Good call... that is a more reliable source but however it does say rural fringe. I think we can settle with suburban. I live in college station and the campus borders two huge neighborhoods and a downtown area. The one side that is undeveloped has an airport.Tamu156 (talk) 20:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm copying this to the article's Talk page and replying there. ElKevbo (talk) 21:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Penn University WikiProject

 * I appreciate but decline the invitation. Good luck!
 * In the future, could you please make a new section on my Talk page if you're starting a new topic? Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 16:06, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I agree that the lead section was a bit too long. I removed some stuff. The total number of new lines is now around 10. If you see the discussion page you will see agreement that the lead section needed expansion. I added one or two sentences per missing topic. I think now it's a good compromise. Thanks. 129.67.119.240 (talk) 15:41, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Awesome. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 16:31, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Lee University Discussion Page
Most of the information on the Lee University discussion page is very outdated and/or trollish. I removed any information that does not serve to improve the article's quality, regardless of who posted it. Per Wikipedia's Talk Page Guidelines, I think it's fair to delete these comments. --Justius (talk) 06:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Feel free to archive the material. But unless it's radically off-topic or blatantly inappropriate, it's poor form to delete others' comments even if you disagree with them.  If you need help creating an archive, please let me know! ElKevbo (talk) 08:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I feel that much of the discussion falls under the "blatantly inappropriate" category, but I will archive them instead of deleting. Thanks. --Justius (talk) 15:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

note
Please don't delete sections without discussion first, the cadaver course at guelph has been here since 1960. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nataliepond1 (talk • contribs) 15:55, August 24, 2011
 * WP:V is not negotiable. Further, the source you provided doesn't support your assertion so I'm removing it again.  Please discuss in the article's Talk page. ElKevbo (talk) 21:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

SPI
You may want to take a look at Sockpuppet investigations/Onemoreforyou. Thanks. --Biker Biker (talk) 14:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Should be an easy case for admins. Luckily the disruption has been slow and easy to deal with so it hasn't been much a of a problem. ElKevbo (talk) 16:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Wesleyan, again
Hello, I saw that you commented earlier on the Wesleyan University article and wondered if you had any opinion on my new comments and new information brought to the discussion - specifically my latest post. Talk:Wesleyan_University. I'm neither pro- nor anti-Wesleyan, but something seems a little un-Wikipedic about it to me. The more I read, the more it seems that way.

Comment here or there if you wish. If needed, I'll RFQ, but just wanted another opinion first. Thanks. Ufwuct (talk) 23:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit summaries
You made a substantial edit to an article but (a) marked it as minor and (b) used a misleading ("Fixed typo.") edit summary. Please don't do that again. ElKevbo (talk) 00:59, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Please accept my apologies; my "minor edit" was made from an old version. I just undid that edit with the following comment:
 * Undid my erroneous edit of 19:06, 2 September 2011 which was branched off an much older version, i.e., I erroneously undid many edits in performing my “minor edit”.

Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 01:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 02:04, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * And I thank you for letting me know (even if there had been an assumption that I mis-marked the edit as "minor") because otherwise my inexcusable deletion of multiple edits may well have gone unnoticed.  Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 12:37, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Cal Poly Softball
I am doing an assignment for school and I do think it is notable to mention who the coaches are for Cal Poly. I played softball there. I am going to post it again and I would appreciate you leaving it up. My teacher is looking at it. IF you want you can edit again in a couple months after my assignment is up. Thanks. Cristen23 (talk) 19:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)Cristen23
 * This is an international collaborative project, not your personal bulletin board. It's inappropriate to have biographies of coaches in an article about an entire university. They *might* be appropriate in an article about the softball program and if you want to go that route I'd be happy to provide some guidance and advice. But demanding we change our standards because you're working an assignment is an unreasonable request and one to which we will not accede. ElKevbo (talk) 21:18, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Take it to a vote
As you have no doubt seen, I'm happy for that section to be voted on. So I respectfully request that you cease edit warring and put it to a vote to editors of that page, instead of engaging in wholesale deleting with no discrimination made among any of the many items in that section. Nightspore (talk) 17:26, 10 September 2011 (UTC)Nightspore
 * There is no voting here. You discuss it with others and reach a consensus. Right now multiple editors agree that the material doesn't belong.  And that position is incontrovertibly supported by WP:V, one of our core policies.  So if you want the material to remain you have to convince other editors on the article's Talk page and you have a very steep slope to climb if you want to keep an entire section of unsourced material. ElKevbo (talk) 20:45, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Didn't notice that the links were alphabetized, so I just added it at the top of the list. -- Avanu (talk) 04:11, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Welcome! ElKevbo (talk) 05:34, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Infobox university
El K, I am replying here because I think it will make you happier, but if I'm wrong, I apologize.

Per your edit and edit summary, it's clear you don't approve of my approach. First of all, I do recognize that ultimately this matter will need to be discussed in terms of policy, not in terms of the infobox wording--I get that. And in time, I hope to be able to address this, but I can tell it will be a long time before I can do so. However, in the meantime, I don't think there's anything wrong with me expressing an opinion on the matter of the template's wording, given the direction I ultimately plan to go. You say the instructions and guidelines have crystallized. While that is true, it is also true that some layers of crystallization are stronger than others. If the template is changed from "image" to "seal", it adds an additional layer that needs to be overturned in order to effect change. All I am doing is being a voice asking that this not be done, to make the process easier later. I hope I've made my reasoning clear, but if not, it won't be the first time I've been misunderstood. That's why I'm always so willing to discuss anything further. HuskyHuskie (talk) 22:08, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I wouldn't interpret the template parameter names in that manner but some others might. I think they would be entirely wrong but that wouldn't stop them from doing so, I guess. :) ElKevbo (talk) 02:00, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Microsoft Academic Search
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=University_of_Guelph&action=history Undid revision 452126406 by ElKevbo (talk)

I would like to know why you think Microsoft Academic Search is not a reliable source for publications? thanks kevinlated (talk) 13:50, 25 September 2011 (EST)


 * Thanks for asking!
 * The burden for establishing that a source is reliable is on the editor(s) who wants to include it. To do that we ask questions like: Is it reputable and well-respected?  Do other publications cite it as a source for ranking or evaluating institutions?  Does it have a sound methodology?  ElKevbo (talk) 19:24, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Search results are not acceptable as sources, actually. Even in Google Books we are citing a specific page in a specific book that is locatable via search engines. MSJapan (talk) 07:13, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

On Harvard Time...
Being a television show, is not a media or campus publication. All of the other items are physical published media. The section is not referring to "all media, as well as campus publications", but "media publications" and "campus publications". Therefore, the TV show does not fit in the list. MSJapan (talk) 19:23, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * How is a television show less of a publication than "physical published media?" That sounds like a terrible bias! ElKevbo (talk) 19:28, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Because a publication is by definition published. A television program is transmitted, and basides, I'm only going by what the section is already titled. MSJapan (talk) 07:10, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That's much too narrow a definition of publication. I think it fits neither the letter nor the spirit of that section. A television show produced by students is just as much a publication as a journal or magazine albeit in a different medium.
 * If it really rankles you, though, why not create another section for television or something similar? That seems like a much better way to handle this than to exclude non-print media. ElKevbo (talk) 16:04, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Because it makes no sense to have a section with one entry. Second of all, if you think the definition of publication is too narrow because it doesn't include TV shows, then you need to pick up a dictionary.  This is because the definition of "publication" as a noun, for example here, makes no mention of TV shows.  You are in an unsupportable position. MSJapan (talk) 16:54, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Only if you ignore all but the first definition, right?
 * Why the discrimination against new media (as if television is really new)? Why isn't it worth mentioning?  Is not as good as print media?  Require less expertise, experience, or dedication?  Do we convey information in worse manner using non-print media? ElKevbo (talk) 18:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * How many other unrelated arguments are you going to bring out? You don't know what something means, so I'm discriminating against "new media"?  My point is that a TV show is not a published medium, and it isn't; it is broadcast or transmitted, not published.  End of story. MSJapan (talk) 17:38, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm going to muster every argument I can to help you understand how your myopic understanding of "publishing" is incorrect, biased against non-print media, and harmful to this encyclopedia. ElKevbo (talk) 18:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, then find me an example of a television program or video where the material is referred to as "published" and not "broadcast". MSJapan (talk) 02:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Once again, if your objection is the specific language used then change it or add a new section rather than censoring material because it doesn't meet your limited understanding of "publication." ElKevbo (talk) 02:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * My point is that it is not the language that its the problem but it is rather your understanding of that language that is incorrect. What you think belongs in there doesn't, and turning the situation around as my problem rather than proving your claim with facts (as I did) is really what is "harmful to the encyclopedia".  One should never champion an unsupportable position.  In any event, the discussion is clearly going nowhere, so we will simply agree to disagree and leave it at that. MSJapan (talk) 16:42, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a problem when your limited understanding and laziness results in censoring valuable information. I'm sorry that you don't see that and I'll keep an eye on your edits to ensure you don't continue to remove valuable information from other articles with poor justification. ElKevbo (talk) 18:25, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello, ElKevbo. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikiquette assistance regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. MSJapan (talk) 03:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 05:30, 8 October 2011 (UTC)