User talk:Esrever/Archive 4

Jethro Tull (band)
"It's not necessary to put "at Discog" after the link, as anyone who chooses to click on the link can figure that one out for him- or herself. :) Cheers!"

Hi Esrever - thanks for your advice. However, I was only following the format as set already, such as "Jethro Tull at Allmusic" that I have seen on this page and elsewhere on the site. I don't think it is very consistant to have these links in one format one place, and another format elsewhere. What do you think? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Record collector 1000 (talk • contribs) 20:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Weirdo82
Then what image of Angela can I use for my userbox? Can you help me?? Thank you a lot!

-User:Weirdo82 —Preceding comment was added at 03:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Favour
Hey, Esrever, could you offer some criticism on Eastern Nazarene College? I'm definitely the biggest contributor, but other editors like User:RGTraynor have suggested that I nominate it for GA status. I'd love your input, and I'm rather desparate to see what others have to say before I nominate it and see, officially, how much it sucks, haha. Aepoutre (talk) 19:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Hotchkiss School
I moved "The Hotchkiss School" to "Hotchkiss School" again. Per Wikipedia's naming conventions, that's how the article should be titled. Despite the fact that Hotchkiss may like to refer to itself as "The Hotchkiss School," it's not a proper noun. This page also provides some guidance on this rationale. Cheers! Esrever (klaT) 05:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I saw your revert, but thanks for reaching out. The school does refer to itself as "The Hotchkiss School" within sentences (for example, here, among other places), which would support the use of "The" in the article title under the relevant Wikipedia policy. However, there are far more productive battles to be fought elsewhere, and I see no reason to push this further. Alansohn (talk) 05:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Further, aside from being part of official chartered names, keep in mind that "THE" is an allowable leading term in WP. If you feel otherwise, then please start by moving The Beatles to Beatles before continuing. Cheers! SpikeJones (talk) 13:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm under no delusion that the isn't permissible on Wikipedia. Rather, the the naming conventions make it pretty clear that the should generally be omitted in the names of schools. Esrever (klaT) 14:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You meant this link UNIVERSITY naming conventions on the same page where it talks about usage of THE in school names, which allows it (unlike the link you're using which suggests to drop THE. .  Like I said, really not a big deal in the end.  But you're right with "ugh".  We've both spent too much time on this. Carry on. SpikeJones (talk) 18:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I probably typed too fast. We're both looking at the same page of WP naming conventions.  You quoted the top section that said not to use "the" in page titles if possible, but further down the page it talks about exceptions such as musical groups (The Who, The Beatles), corporations (The New York Times, The Harford), and Universities (which I equated as "schools" for purpose of discussion, which lists The Citadel and one or two other examples that would be similar to use of The Hill School).  You are completely right in asking for those other in-line sources that used "The", as that is what the guidelines ask for, but the university section already covered the topic and was more appropriate for the discussion you and I were having, including the fact that this was an allowable exception to the rule you were looking to adhere to. :) SpikeJones (talk) 19:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "It looks funny" - no question about that at all. Nice chatting with you. SpikeJones (talk) 20:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

THANK YOU
Thank you a lot for explaining the copyrighted stuff, and I understand what you mean. -User:Weirdo82 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.115.161.128 (talk) 08:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter (July 2008)

 * Newsletter delivery by xenobot  12:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter
Sorry about the delay. AWB has been having a few issues lately. Here is the august issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter! Dr. Cash (talk) 20:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

If you're interested
Hey! Sorry to bother, but I've come to respect your opinion on university-related matters for Wikipedia. I've set up some templates for Talk:Southern Nazarene University and posted info at Proposed_mergers to see if I can generate any discussion on whether or not we should have separate articles for SNU history, athletics, buildings, awards, etc. I'd cast my vote with the idea that, if well-crafted, the content can all be included in the main article, but I don't feel as if one man's opinion matters quite enough to start creating and destroying willy-nilly (or if my philosophy is even reasonable). Let me know what you think. Aepoutre (talk) 15:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Image
Hello Esrever. I saw what you did to Image:CSU.PNG a long time ago, and I would like to know if you would be kind enough to explain me how to tun a non-transparent image transparet. I assumed you used Inkscape to do it. I don't know what would I have to save it as a .SVG. Plain a .SVG, or the likes? Thank you in advance.--Dabackgammonator (talk) 04:39, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Loyola College Rugby Football Club
Not a professional team? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:College_rugby Stay away from the Loyola article. You are damaging it.Interzil (talk) 03:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not really sure that pointing me to a category of college rugby teams does anything to rebut my argument that the Loyola team is not a professional rugby team. Esrever (klaT) 12:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I was merely showing you that each of these colleges have Rugby teams with their own pages. There is no reason Loyola shouldn't have one. Interzil (talk) 21:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Loyola College
Esrever Sorry I didn't know that. Do you think that passage is a bit redundant then? Interzil (talk) 21:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

My accout
I think for everyone's conveniences, I think you should go ahead and perm-ban this IP address because this is a high-school user account that everyone had access to. There are more than one person using this account and subsequently, this computer. I ( me talking) have a wiki account at home and apologize for my classmate's disruptive behavior. Please ban or restrict this IP! 69.92.95.145 (talk) 20:55, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, I'm not an administrator, so there's nothing I can do about this issue. If vandalism continues from that IP address, it'll eventually be brought to the attention of the admins who can block it.  Thanks for your comment, though. Cheers! Esrever (klaT) 00:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

THANK YOU
Thank you for explaining me how to make transparent images. I would humbly like to give you an award I created for a WikiProject and I hope you shall kindly accept it.


 * Thank you! I'm all too happy to help. :) Esrever (klaT) 22:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

As a previous active contributor of WP:UNI/COTF...
We are starting WP:UNI/COTM, please review the ten randomly selected nominees and vote for the articles you wish to improve. (Category:WikiProject Universities COTM candidates) The COTM will run throughout the month of December. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or comment on WT:UNI/COTM. Have a great day!  - Jameson L. Tai   talk ♦  guestbook  ♦  contribs  21:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Coffee Kids
Thanks for fixing the article title error, I tried to do that myself but couldn't figure out how, could you fill me in? Also if you have any other thoughts on the article I would be grateful. Beanbuff (talk) 07:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all the tips! I will put them to work.Beanbuff (talk) 14:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Comprise/compose
According to Merriam-Webster online, "comprise" has been used in the sense of "to make up" since the 18th century. See the explanation here: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/comprise. I'm not going to revert as it's not a big deal. Cheers. Academic38 (talk) 22:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

A new round of Collaboration of the Month is about to begin!
Yes, it's that time! A new article has been chosen our COTM next month.

Here's something I want to try, start treating it as a peer review. Start by skimming through the article, making sure the article fits our article guidelines. Then review for content: any copyvio, notability issues, reference listings, following the Manual of Style. Again, let's make sure we stick to the objectives listed on WP:UNI/COTM. Feel free to use the talk page of the article or COTM page to reflect or express opinions on how to make this program even better. Feel free to utilize if you wish, that channel doesn't get used enough and I'm usually there if I'm near a computer.

And here's something even more radical. See if you can attract authors currently maintaining the different COTM articles to join our WikiProject and better yet, our COTM project. I found when I started this program, jumping ships and editing other universities' articles was a big leap, but it's been very fun so far. I'd like to see more people actively participating.

Let's start off the new COTM program the right way. I want to see those articles in GA and FA soon. Hope everyone had a good Thanksgiving holiday and enjoy those Black Friday deals.  - Jameson L. Tai   talk ♦  guestbook  ♦  contribs  09:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Bart on the Road
Thank a lot for your copyedit on Bart on the Road! :) Are you interested in GA reviewing it? —The Le ft orium 16:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem on the copyedit. However, I don't really like reviewing articles relating to television, if only because people tend to have very specific thoughts about what should and should not be included in such articles.  I don't have strong feelings on them, but I hesitate to step on any toes.  See things like this for what I mean. :) Esrever (klaT) 17:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Look
You may want to take a look at Talk:Cornelius_Vanderbilt, since I've taken your name in vain there. - Nunh-huh 23:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Careful
You're letting (and his IP sock) goad you perilously close to WP:3RR in what is still essentially a content dispute (if a stupid one). Don't worry; there are other eyes watching the article. --Dynaflow  babble  02:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You're absolutely right. Thanks for the heads up&mdash;I'll try to step back from it. Cheers! Esrever (klaT) 03:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Numbers
Just a note/question about numbers and hyphens. I had a hyphen in "four-hundred" because it was used as an adjective, as in "four-hundred foos". Should I not do that? Anyway, my rule (and just mine, not Wikipedia's) has been to spell out numbers that can be with two words or less. I do this for appearance and maybe consistency.--Patrick «» 04:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * No, you don't need to hyphenate those two words, even when used as an adjective. And so long as you're consistent, I don't really see a problem with it. That one particular section just caught my eye today, so I changed it on the fly. I think the manual of style has rules on numbers, but I'm too lazy to look it up right now. :) If you prefer it the other way 'round (i.e., spelled out), then certainly feel free to change it back. Cheers! Esrever (klaT) 05:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Starbucks
- I am asking nicely if I can have something about Starbucks Pakistan. If people are unhappy with the Costa thing then you can cut that bit out but PLS leave as much of the rest as possible. I am very Thankfull to any1 who can help make a compromise and end this dispute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.24.72.7 (talk) 23:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I've added a title to this comment. While I don't think any mention of Pakistan needs to be included at all, my talk page really isn't the place to discuss it. Please establish consensus on the article's talk page instead. Esrever (klaT) 23:19, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps invitation
Hello, I hope you are doing well. I am sending you this message since you are a member of the GA WikiProject. I would like to invite you to consider helping with the GA sweeps process. Sweeps helps to ensure that the oldest GAs still meet the criteria, and improve the quality of GAs overall. Unfortunately, last month only two articles were reviewed. This is definitely a low point after our peak at the beginning of the process when 163 articles were reviewed in September 2007. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. All exempt and previously reviewed articles have already been removed from the list. Instead of reviewing by topic, you can consider picking and choosing whichever articles interest you.

We are always looking for new members to assist with the remaining articles, so if you are interested or know of anybody that can assist, please visit the GA sweeps page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. If only 14 editors achieve this feat starting now, we would be done with Sweeps! Of course, having more people reviewing less articles would be better for all involved, so please consider asking others to help out. Feel free to stop by and only review a few articles, something's better than nothing! Take a look at the list, and see what articles interest you. Let's work to complete Sweeps so that efforts can be fully focused on the backlog at GAN. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 08:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion
Please don't subst speedy deletion tags. It makes it awkward if an admin has to remove it. Thanks. Stifle (talk) 14:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I just pasted in the text from Possibly unfree files as indicated there. Esrever (klaT) 01:15, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Formatting for Ivy League presidents article
Thanks for cleaning up certain elements of the Ivy League presidents article. However, some of the changes you made resulted in the loss of painstakingly assembled information regarding the historical evolution of institutional names and the corresponding table of contents format. There should be only 8 elements in the Table of Contents, and it is helpful for viewers of the article to be able to see clearly in the 8-element table of contents the evolution in institutional names over which the several presidents presided. Much appreciated if you could revise your edits to resurrect those contributions. Thanks!


 * Sorry, didn't see this in time. Check the talk page to see my rationale for not including it, and for a possible solution. Esrever (klaT) 00:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Righteous among the Nations
Hi, my question is about this edit. You referred to the book The Warlord and the Renegade to support the fact that Albert Goering was awarded the title Righteous among the Nations. I could not find any confirmation of this in the Internet, including the Yad Vashem site, so I keep thinking it's a kind of mistake. Could you please email me a picture of p.7 of this book, taken by photo camera or by scanner? :) --Yms (talk) 12:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I just imported the reference from the Albert Goering article. If memory serves, I saw a Google Books "preview" of the work in question, but now I'm unable to replicate that search. If you're uncomfortable with that, remove the reference and the offending statement. Esrever (klaT) 13:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I thought so. --Yms (talk) 13:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject LGBT studies Newsletter (June 2009)

 * Newsletter delivery by xenobot  17:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Article for deletion: Ivy_League_(colloquialism)
I thought you'd like to know I've nominated the article Ivy_League_(colloquialism) for deletion.

As the article itself cites, it's use of the term "ivy league" is "intended to promote the other schools by comparing them to the Ivy League, but unlike the "Ivy League" label, they have no canonical definition". This hardly seems notable. The article is an academic booster-magnet and would grow to be a "loose collection" of vaguely defined "prestigious schools". As it currently stands, it provides no other reliable sources or information then what is already available in the article Ivy_league. --Work permit (talk) 03:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The Winsor School -> Winsor School
Hi; you recently renamed The Winsor School to Winsor School, citing WP:MOS. However, the MOS says this:


 * A, an, and the are normally avoided as the first word (Economy of the Second Empire, not The economy of the Second Empire), unless part of a proper noun (The Hague).

(Emphasis mine.)

As well as this:


 * Correct       (title):             J. R. R. Tolkien wrote The Lord of the Rings.

"The Winsor School" is a proper noun; "Winsor School" is incorrect. --Zarel (talk) 03:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The Winsor School is not a proper noun; Winsor School is. It's just an extension of the convention for naming university articles (here). Esrever (klaT) 14:40, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * See its usage here and here. Esrever (klaT) 14:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Bicentennial Oak
Esrever - we've worked together on Vandy's page in the past. I'm pretty sure whoever uploaded the "new" picture of Bic. Oak didn't know what they were taking a picture of, because that magnolia in the foreground is not bicentennial oak. It replaced one of my older pictures. Now I know the article was picture heavy, but that's my fav. pic of vandy and is much better than the current [wrong] file. Reid Sullivan (talk) 03:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Totally agree. I never even noticed that the picture was wrong. Do you have a link to the image of Bicentennial Oak? If so, I'd say go ahead and replace the "wrong" picture with it. Esrever (klaT) 03:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Never mind. I found the picture here. Esrever (klaT) 03:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Image Missing Evidence of Permission
I have an image (HZurich.jpg) that you flagged as an image missing evidence of permission. I've followed the instructions to have the email from the copyright owner sent or forwarded to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. I did that a few days ago, but haven't gotten a reply back or an entry in "my talk" toward the resolution of the issue. Is there something else I need to do? Jrnhoops (talk) 19:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You probably want to note it on the image's talk page, too. Esrever (klaT) 23:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I have added the note as you suggested. When will the image be no longer considered having "unknown copyright status"? Who will be making the change in designation and removing the "no permission" and "deletable" tags? Jrnhoops (talk) 15:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Somebody from the OTRS team that catalogs permission will need to come through and update it, I imagine. I think as long as there's an explanation on the file's talk page that you've tried to get permission from the copyright holder, administrators will likely hold off on deleting it. Esrever (klaT) 16:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, a fat log of good that did me. I never heard anything back and today ... poof! ... the image was deleted. Some dude named MBisanz wiped it away. The image has been up and showing since September and in a matter of 7 days in November it just gets wiped out. What more am I to do? Jrnhoops (talk) 23:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Try messaging the user who deleted it. Esrever (klaT) 23:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I did and am now waiting for a reply. But, maybe you could explain something for me. You flagged my image as having missing evidence of permission, as opposed to what I would expect to hear from the OTRS team (that you state catalogs permission). I present evidence of permission to the OTRS (I assume by forwarding the permission email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org). Seven days later a 3rd party comes along and deletes the image when the OTRS fails to followup with my input of evidence (again I assume since I heard nothing and nothing was done to remove the delete tag from my image). Is this the norm for handling submissions to Wikipedia? Seems unlikely anyone would want to bother to submit images if one knows they're going to get  around (pick a suitable unpleasant experience) by procedures and gatekeepers that don't seem to be all insync with each others' actions. What did I fail to do or improperly do that caused my perfectly suitable and permissible image to be deleted from submission when it had been online for over 6 weeks? Jrnhoops (talk) 01:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I tagged the image as being deletable because you hadn't actually shown any evidence that Rutgers's athletic department was willing to license it in the manner you suggested. That is, we can't just take your word for it. Once something's been tagged, it will normally only last 7 days before it gets deleted. I'm sorry OTRS didn't get back to you in time, but the image can always be re-uploaded (or restored by the deleting admin). Cheers! Esrever (klaT) 01:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, now ... see here's my dilemma. Here's what the Admin replied back with ... "You should ask User:Esrever, who tagged the images, since he claimed it did not have permission." I'm starting to get that "unpleasant experience" feeling again :) I'm gonna take your advice and re-upload the image and hope that the necessary procedures and gatekeepers manage to align things properly this time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrnhoops (talk • contribs) 14:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't know what to tell you. The image didn't have permission, as you weren't able to provide any evidence that Rutgers' athletic department was licensing it in such a way. The website you list as the source clearly has a copyright statement on it. I'm not sure what else you can do, other than wait on OTRS to get to it. Esrever (klaT) 19:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Chace Crawford
I was confused by your recent edit revert here 1 on the Chace Crawford page. I don't see what was wrong--most tables have all shows/movies wiki linked. For example, featured article Angelina Jolie mentions movie titles both in the text and in the table--and both are linked. By glancing at the table, one would think that Twelve did not have a wiki page. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 14:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you.
Thank you for looking after our entry. We have been the victim of a lot of slanderous comments, and not being able to lock our page, this is very helpful.

Thank you.

71.202.31.5 (talk) 23:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Trinity Christian Academy, Max Meggs
Hi Eserver, I appreciate your help on getting this resolved. Obviously there is no point to saying Max went to this random school unless he actually attended. But, I agree it needs to be cited correctly. I've asked him for a website that dictates this and he gave me his login to the school site which I've linked. Also, on an older page he was added by another party and stayed current until I (Max's management) attempted to make his entry more clean (the old entry said he was a radio shack pitchmen which is true but very old). —Preceding unsigned comment added by VanguardTalentMGMT (talk • contribs) 18:03, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not being a vandal, you sir are ignorant —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caanh95 (talk • contribs) 17:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your contributions to the Perry Wallace article! Regards, PDCook (talk) 18:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

New South Hall
Hey, I saw you added some touch ups to the article on New South Hall today, and I appreciated that. Right now a user is campaigning against articles on college buildings, and I managed to bring this at least to AfD. If you had any comments, I'd love to get them there. Thanks again!-- Patrick {o Ѻ ∞} 18:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

List of popes by length of reign
Good idea on the page to hatnote that. It didn't occur to me. Thanks. Outback the koala (talk) 17:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No prob! Esrever (klaT) 17:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

April 2010 GAN backlog elimination drive
–MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 17:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Wharton
Hello, your edit seems to be alright - I am not completely sure what they mean by a "collegiate" business school - but Wharton seems to be the first business school in the world established as a part of a larger university. This link: has a bit more info.

Thanks!

Aurorion (talk) 08:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Wharton Admit Rate
YOUR reference number 16 says 5500 applied and 650 admitted. The admit rate should be 12%
 * It's not MY reference. I'm saying About.com doesn't exactly constitute a reliable source on Penn's application numbers this year. Esrever (klaT) 20:43, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The original reference #16, which is businessweek.com  shows that whatton admit rate is 13% and yield is 77%. Wharton is much easier than HYP.
 * The "original reference" also doesn't say anything about Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Columbia, Brown, or any other Ivy. Stop POV-pushing. Esrever (klaT) 15:09, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

New Trier Edit
You deleted specific, relevant information to this page. That's lame. Wikipedia is about an information database. So long as the information is relevant and may be useful to users attempting to learn more about an incident-- then you should leave it alone. 24.255.165.125 (talk) 18:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Adding in the student's name is useless. The event is barely notable itself, so I'm not sure how including his name in the article makes it any more useful to readers. Esrever (klaT) 21:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I mean, it's not really for you to decide-- is it? Just reverting changes to feel like you did something is ridiculous. Giving the name means that people can search for the incident with far more specifics. It's relevant, and useful, so leave it alone. 24.255.165.125 (talk) 22:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * For instance, compare the hits on Google about the incident when you compare "Jonah Greenthal" alone to "New Trier Hacker". The Jonah Greenthal search yields several results on the first page that "New Trier Hacker" does not. Leave it alone. Wikipedia is about information. 24.255.165.125 (talk) 23:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is about many things, including, for example, consensus. Seek consensus on the talk page before continuing to add information. Esrever (klaT) 23:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

That's fine. But it's clear that in this particular instance you're just being power hungry and a bit of a control freak. There are results to be had and information to be learned with the addition of my edit-- so unless it's TRULY pointless (like if I said what color shirt he was wearing), I think the name and year of the student is relevant. So stop being obstinate and leave it alone. Jeeze. 24.255.165.125 (talk) 23:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

You should read : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Don't_revert_due_to_%22no_consensus%22 That page. Wikipedia is almost ALWAYS in favor of adding information as opposed to taking away information. "It is best to first consider whether there is a substantive problem with the edit in question. If it added unsourced or poorly-sourced information, try to find said information yourself, or failing that, note that in the revert summary. If it made the presentation of material awkward, edit to make the presentation less awkward. If it added a biased statement, try to find a way to recast it into a neutral mode. If it added instructions on how to do something, explain that Wikipedia is not a manual. If it removed content with no explanation or an unconvincing one, note that you are restoring valid content, and why the explanation is unconvincing (if the edit summary box is too small for this, continue on the talk page)." It is well sourced, I can source it better if you want-- it doesn't make the material awkward, it doesn't make it biased, it doesn't add instructions, it's not eliminating content. You want to talk consensus, we can talk consensus. 24.255.165.125 (talk) 23:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

You should also read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reverting this article on reverting. It says, "Revert vandalism on sight, but revert a good faith edit only as a last resort. Edit warring is prohibited." I provided a good faith edit. "A reversion can eliminate "good stuff," discourage other editors, and spark an edit war. So if you feel the edit is unsatisfactory, then try to improve it, if possible – reword rather than revert. Similarly, if only part of an edit is problematic then consider modifying only that part instead of reverting the whole edit – don't throw the baby out with the bathwater." 24.255.165.125 (talk) 23:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not really something one can reword, is it? Either the article includes the name of the student, or it doesn't. There's no "middle ground" there that I can see. It's got nothing to do with being a "control freak": I simply don't think your edit improves the article. Reasonable people can disagree on this point, which is why I'm seeking consensus with other editors. Esrever (klaT) 23:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy appears to be: when in doubt, leave it alone. It adds something, so stop being a CONTROL FREAK. 24.255.165.125 (talk) 23:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your thoughts on the matter. Let's continue this discussion on the article's talk page instead. Esrever (klaT) 23:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

wharton
Hello- i see you deleted additions regarding student life at wharton. i'm not sure why. it's the only info that's actually not just a copy/ paste from the school's website. and that info is 1% relevant to life at wharton... but what i added actually is- i know; i go there. wikipedia should not be a commercial, copying the subject's own website; it should contain relevant, interesting info that you may not get elsewhere. i'd urge you to leave it in or edit portions as you see fit to improve it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.133.7.130 (talk) 02:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * No, Wikipedia should be about useful, noteworthy information, not a collection of random facts and trivia. The article is about Wharton, not about student life at Wharton. There's a distinction. Esrever (klaT) 05:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Universities Signpost Interview
Hello Esrever! My name is Mono and I represent the WikiProject Desk at the Signpost. Mabeenot recommended that I contact you, so I wanted to invite you to participate in the Signpost's upcoming report on WikiProject Universities. This is a wonderful opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. If you'd like to join in, I've posted interview questions here. Thank you!  ℳ ono

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Mono at 21:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC).

The Collins College of Hospitality Management
...is its official name, including "The". Marco made the same mistake, and reverted it when that was pointed out. Considering that the actual names of things has become increasingly unimportant at Wikipedia, I've lost interest in contesting, but I did correct the article.--Curtis Clark (talk) 12:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ohio State's article talk page has a long discussion over the same dilemma. Dr. Clark's latest revision inadvertently arrived to the same result. I think letting the reader know that the definite article "The" is part of the official name should be stressed, albeit the common name does not. Also, "The" should be shown throughout Cal Poly Pomona's main article, university template and the own article's infobox. How does that sound? -- Marco Guzman, Jr Chat  02:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

March 2011 GAN backlog elimination drive a week away
 WikiProject Good Articles will be running a GAN backlog elimination drive for the entire month of March. The goal of this drive is to bring the number of outstanding Good Article nominations down to below 50. This will help editors in restoring confidence to the GAN process as well as actively improving, polishing, and rewarding good content. If you are interested in participating in the drive, please place your name here. Awards will be given out to those who review certain numbers of GANs as well as to those who review the most. On behalf of my co-coordinator Wizardman, we hope we can see you in March. MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 00:25, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Phi Gamma Delta
So nice to see an edit to this page that neither requires someone to have WP:Censor explained to them or is a revert of such an edit.Naraht (talk) 17:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I do what I can. :) Esrever (klaT) 21:49, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Vanderbilt University Picture Edits
Hi there. I see you deleted my updated campus pictures on the Vanderbilt University page. I'm a manager for the grounds crew at the University and the pictures I replaced are very dated. We've done a lot of work over the past couple years and these pictures are updated and represent how the school actually looks now. In the interest of keeping Wikipedia as current as possible, these image swaps should be kept, as they are more recent images. Respectfully, can you please revert the changes?

Thank you. Dansan4444 (talk) 23:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Neither you nor I is the only person who edits that particular article. I'm not opposed to new pictures, but I do think it needs to be discussed on the article's talk page first. What pictures would you suggest replacing, what would you replace them with, and why? I think it bears remembering that the article's images aren't part of an advertising campaign about how nice the grounds look. Instead, they need to illustrate key parts of the university. Removing the Vanderbilt logo and replacing it with a skyline shot, for example, seems like a bad idea in my opinion. The logo is the most recognizable "image" of VU, I should think. Esrever (klaT) 02:58, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Exploratorium Picture Edits
Hi, I noticed you switched the new image for the Exploratorium's entry back to the image of the Palace of Fine Arts. It may in fact be a better image, and something that is recognizable, however the picture does not represent the Exploratorium but the Palace it shares space with. In 2013 once the Exploratorium moves to the Piers, I imagine I or someone else at the Exploratorium will want to switch the image for a photo of the new facilities. (Dacreep (talk) 09:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC))
 * That's fine. It's hard for other editors to know your rationale for making the change, though, when you don't use an edit summary. Esrever (klaT) 13:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Understandable, I will begin to use the edit summary area with all new changes. Thanks (Dacreep (talk) 19:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC))

TN_66 editing Vanderbilt Commodores page
Hi, I noticed that you undid the changes I made to the page about Vanderbilt Athletics I did not notice that what I was doing was wrong I am currently re-typing the facts that I received online so it is not copyright infringement. I hope the changes work, if not please message me about what I am still doing wrong. Thanks!

TN 66 (talk) 00:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC) TN_66

David Foster Wallace capitalization
Why not capitalize the other sections within the infobox? 842U (talk) 09:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * All right, done. Esrever (klaT) 13:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

University of Pennsylvania
I noticed that you are a major contributor to the University of Pennsylvania article. Do you have any affiliation with the University or is it just a topic you are interested in? Ryan Vesey Review me!  06:28, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Just a topic I'm interested in. Esrever (klaT) 13:36, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

American Airlines
I reverted your reversion of the IP editor's removal of the 787-9 from the fleet table. Normally we don't put orders which are not firm in the table. The 787 order isn't firm yet, neither is the 737 MAX order. &mdash;Comp dude 123 17:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That's fine. I only reverted it because it wasn't explained. Esrever (klaT) 18:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Origin of the term PPO
I have reinserted my reference regarding PPO. The term was created in the memo to which I have made reference, which is relevant to the etymology of the term. Moreover, the article is requesting useful references to strengthen the entry so I would prefer to see the reference there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timwaw (talk • contribs) 14:02, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This is why edit summaries are useful. Esrever (klaT) 17:02, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Teasing a bit
Tracking through bad contributions by an IP I came across another bad edit. Checked to see if the next edit had corrected that.

You came so close to Hell and didn't even feel the heat? Whew, you're a cool cookie! :-) 24.28.17.231 (talk) 21:58, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ha--whoops! The things we overlook sometimes . . . Esrever (klaT) 22:04, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

 * Thanks! :) Esrever (klaT) 23:22, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Vanderbilt Stadium

 * That is from the Tennessesan yes however I did change it. It is NOT Verbatim! I left in what was pertanet to the page of upgrades to the stdium. I also added info to the field that you deleted.
 * This is the whole Verbatim you clam I am plagerizeing:

removed copyrighted text

If you don't like that I used it can you please at least eddit it so it fits you?  MDSanker 04:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I think we must disagree over the meaning of the word verbatim. Almost all of the above paragraphs from the Tennessean were found word-for-word in the Vanderbilt Stadium article. I don't know how to be any clearer about this: that violates a copyright and is not allowed on Wikipedia. How about this? If you want information on these renovations included in the article, read the Tennessean article again, then write the information in the Vanderbilt Stadium article yourself without looking at the news article. Our job here is to summarize, not repeat. But you cannot keep copying and pasting from one to the other. Esrever (klaT) 13:36, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Tom Santopietro
Esrever,

Thank you for your contributions to the Tom Santopietro article. I noticed your edit summary which stated: "image's page doesn't have a fair use rationale covering its use in this article." I was the uploader of the Godfather Effect bookcover image. I thus returned to the image file and included Tom Santopietro (the author of the book) in the fair use / intended use section.

Going forward, if you can, please leave a slight entry in the Talk Page regarding any major changes and/or concerns. This will allow me (or any other editors) to respond or help with that concern more effectively.

Again, thanks for your contributions to the page (!) Nelsondenis248 (talk) 00:33, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your note. I'm not generally one to leave comments on talk pages explaining why I make changes to an article--that's what the edit summary is for. If it's something that needs actual discussion (like if there's a broader issue I think needs to be addressed), I'll happily put a comment on the talk page. Esrever (klaT) 00:35, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay, I understand. If any further questions arise, I will simply communicate to you here. Sound correct? Nelsondenis248 (talk) 00:51, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Here's one - I just saw the caption you added. But the bookcover already states the title, in large letters. Does that look redundant to you? It's not a big deal, just a thought.  Nelsondenis248 (talk) 00:55, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't have strong feelings about it, I'll be honest. I think every image should have a caption, but if you don't like it or want to caption it differently, go right ahead. :) Esrever (klaT) 00:58, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Alphonse and Gaston! :)
 * Regards, Nelsondenis248 (talk) 01:01, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Than you for the fair use rationale which you provided in The Godfather Effect image file. Over time, I will add that language to other images, where appropriate and needed. Nelsondenis248 (talk) 00:37, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Ivy League
Your edit of the Princeton/Harvard championship history in the "Historical results" section in "Ivy League" is an improvement to my earlier draft. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.188.29.70 (talk) 16:02, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Esrever (klaT) 16:10, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Just letting you know. Thanks!Fomeister (talk) 22:01, 30 July 2012 (UTC) == Undid revision 506911408 by Esrever (talk) Unclear explanation for undoing entirely Wharton's history which was not overly bostery as supported ==

The link you put on the message was one of the sources of the school's history as mentioned in the references.

The text can be improved and I will work on improving: it doesn't mean you have to delete an entire section, but you can rather change its content in ways that you think expresses better, no? I obviously don't know by art the history of the wharton school, but perhaps given that it is the first business school in US, it deserves a more complete section on history, don't you think? Why, instead of just deleting you don't work with me on completing the item?

The fact that I did not take the picture myself does not mean it cannot be shared, otherwise wikipedia should be cleaned up of 99% of its pictures - you can check for example the other business school's websites.

Additionally, not to be cheesy or unnecessarily partial, but I think you should show more politeness and respect on Wikipedia community and send messages which are more thoughtful and explanatory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mck9 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 11 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I fully agree that Wharton probably deserves a fuller treatment of its history as the first business school in the world. I encourage you to write that history, using reliable sources and your own words. But you cannot copy-and-paste words verbatim from Wharton's website (or any website). That's a violation of copyright, and it isn't tolerated on Wikipedia. I've reverted your changes yet again. Also, the fact that you didn't take a picture yourself does, in fact, mean it cannot be shared. Again, that's a violation of copyright.


 * If you found my messages on your talk page curt or rude, that's because I have a very low tolerance for people who are violating a core policy here on Wikipedia. I hope the above is sufficient explanation for you. Esrever (klaT) 20:16, 11 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the explanation (and the patience) - I agree with your comments: will refrain from repeating such behavior in the future. Apologies if I misinterpreted you early on

Wharton School
Hi,

I spent three hours writing myself every sentence of the article, and apart from the period 1970-2000s, it is based on multiple sources - can you please tell me which sentence do you think it is copied and pasted?

Many thanks, T — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tabrin-mabra (talk • contribs) 17:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Also I eliminated a few peacocks / unreferenced sentences - I think they should be taken out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tabrin-mabra (talk • contribs) 17:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I think I was looking at the wrong revision when I made the decision to revert. I'm adding it all back (though I plan to go through and cut out a lot of it anyway, since most of it's not appropriate for an encyclopedia really). Esrever (klaT) 18:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for reviewing and cleaning up the history. However, I believe the reason for which I re-introduced "United States' first business school" (in addition to world's collegiate one) is correct (I'll write this in the talk of the article too). My basic thesis is the fact that being the world's first collegiate school does not logically imply or include also being "US first business school", because 'collegiate' is a sub-segment of the term 'business school'. Imagine this example: a) The world’s oldest laptop (say from 1990) is in San Francisco; but b) United States’ oldest desktop computer (say from 1980) is in New York. Now if you combine the two cases, you have that both the world's oldest laptop is in San Francisco and that the US' oldest computer is in New York. I.e. the two statements are not mutually exclusive. Consequently looking at the business schools case, you could very possibly have a graduate business school founded in 1850 in the US and then Wharton in 1881 as the world's first collegiate school, in which case Wharton would not be anymore US oldest business school. And this is what the article seems to imply in this way, which is why I spotted a logical fallacy in this version of the introduction and corrected it. Hence, I do think that the two statements indicate two important and different characteristics in describing this item that are not implied by each other. For this reason, I do not understand its removal and I believe my original re-introduction is correct, in particular for a rigorous encyclopedia. As such, I think it should be re-inserted in the article's introduction and history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tabrin-mabra (talk • contribs) 20:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I still think that's silly. I'm all for simplifying language. If we can say "first business school in the world" (or anything else that doesn't involve having to add United States), that's best. Collegiate doesn't mean "undergraduate", but "relating to a college". I don't see the need to add more information about the United States. Esrever (klaT) 22:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Or are we to read collegiate as undergraduate? If that's the case, just say it was the first undergraduate school of business in the world. I think bragging about how old it is at any level is sort of foolish, but I'll defer to others' views. Esrever (klaT) 22:14, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Or, another interpretation, does collegiate mean "constituent college" (i.e., that is was the first school of business to be attached to a larger institution)? Esrever (klaT) 22:23, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree with Tabrin on this issue - they are two separate categories, and adding both to the introduction doesn't make the article more complex, but rather it clarifies it (collegiate, as per above, is a bit obscure) and adding a second category makes it more complete. It is not uncommon to put 2 or plus categories in an introduction for wikipedia or any other encyclopedia - look for example at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dina_Manfredini

(2nd oldest in the world, but oldest Italian in the world, whereas MG is oldest Italian in Italy), or even: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiroemon_Kimura (oldest living man, oldest living person in Japan and in Asia, first Japanese to be oldest living man, oldest Asian person ever to have lived in three centuries, plus another 5 or 6 categorization...) That is to say Wikipedia should scientifically report all the relevant facts, and which one is the oldest business school in the United States is a relevant fact from any point of view, and above all from the historical one. US was the leading force of the industrial revolution in 1850-1900 and whether that had an influence on the academia is by any means relevant and should be made available to everyone. It is even more relevant than world's first collegiate business school, because to some extent this does not link it to anything of historical relevance.
 * Okay, I really don't care. Esrever (klaT) 01:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

University of Pennsylvania and "Unnamed Charity School" / Ivy League
A great many organizations which traffic in the business of "prestige," such as law firms and investment banks, try very hard to be associated with founding dates as early as possible. Perhaps nowhere is this practice more egregious than on the campuses of our most famous universities, which are always touting their status of having the first this and the first that. The year which Penn uses as its founding date is one of the more interesting and humorous examples of the habit of using convoluted, strained rationales to claim the earliest date possible. Describing the history and train of thought which Penn uses to rationalize its founding date is a natural subject matter for a wiki table entitled "Founding Dates." This is especially true since there is no known name for the educational trust established in 1740 which Penn uses to support its founding date. A more thorough description of how and why a major university claims ancestry back to an "Unnamed Charity School" is exactly the kind of informative sidebar discussion which should be explored in a footnote.

While this information could be included in the note found in the main body of the article, it is sufficiently detailed and long enough to warrant being positioned in the footnotes to avoid cluttering the primary text. While it is specific to Penn in particular rather than the Ivy League in general, there are only eight members of the Ivy League. Any interesting history about any Ivy school is by definition germane to the conference as a whole. Indeed, a majority of other footnotes are about individual Ivy universities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.42.152.64 (talk) 01:49, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. It belongs in the Penn article, period. It's got no relevance to the Ivy League beyond being a mildly interesting footnote in the history of one particular institution. Esrever (klaT) 02:10, 19 December 2012 (UTC)q

Glengarry Glen Ross (film)
Please see the subsection at Talk:Glengarry Glen Ross (film).

Thanks. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:05, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Edits to Dilbert and Peter Principles
Hello, and thanks for your message. I believe you are mistaken in removing the material on the Dolson Principle. This is a principle related to both the Dilbert Principle and the Peter Principle and deserves mention on those pages. Just so you know, I am NOT the author, but I have the read the book in question and it is brilliant. I fail to see why, in this day and age, an ebook with a valid ISBN published online cannot be a valid source. I AM a third party! I have no connection with Mr. Dolson, have never met him, and have never communicated with him. I am not trying to "publish" original research! BusinessSense20000 BusinessSense20000 (talk) 18:41, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying you have any connection to Dolson or to his principle. But there are no reliable sources indicating it's anything other than one person's theory. If it had been picked up and mentioned in a newspaper or in an academic journal, then sure, I could see it including it. Esrever (klaT) 18:51, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Regarding endowment data
Hi Esrever,

I use the NAUCBO data because it allows people to easily access a comparison of the school's endowments compared with other universities. It also shows percent change which is very important information when looking up universities. Endowment information is usually inflated by having different methodologies to count in the endowment. Some consider external physical plant profits, patent accumulation and holdings and even non-traditional athletic revenue. Often times there aren't any sources at all. NAUCBO standardizes the data. It's considered the official source. I feel it's just a better source for us to use rather than a standalone link or US News as I have seen.

Here is the source link. 2012 values are slated to be released in late January 2013. I'm assuming next week. http://www.nacubo.org/Research/NACUBO-Commonfund_Study_of_Endowments/Public_NCSE_Tables.html

The 2012 dataset will be released next week. I will update the values then.

Thanks, DMB112 (talk) 20:55, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I still disagree that using outdated data, "standardized" or not, is useful, but c'est la vie. Esrever (klaT) 20:57, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Re Massry Prize
OK, will rewrite it, as it's a rather big prize. Thx for the correction. Ybidzian (talk) 19:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Science prizes are a bit of a crusade of mine, since student numbers in science are falling :( The other thing is I was tidying up a page of someone who had been noted as having won it, and I hate red links.  So, rather than write a whole page for it, I thought I'd put it in the Keck page and link from there.  A lot of science prizes are not so much about the money, but the Lectureships that go with them actually and scientists make a bit of a habit of listing them.  If you search Massry, there are some high profile scientists (Nobel Winners like Ada Yonath) that have won it, but there are no links to the prize itself.  I would go through and link them all you see :) Kind of making Wiki more linked from within Ybidzian (talk) 19:54, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, to be fair, I don't really care enough about this prize or the Keck School to lodge much of an objection here. It seems like trivia to me, but if you want to do it, so be it. Esrever (klaT) 19:59, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Stanford University proper and improper nouns
Hi user Esrever. If you revert to capitalized, shouldn't it be written Schools of Education? 'Education' reads like a general concept such as the 'physics department' or 'chemistry' as opposed to the 'Department of Physics', 'College of Chemistry'. Also, it reads "schools of [] []", like general concepts. Thanks and take care.Snowfalcon cu (talk) 03:40, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Part of my explanation got cut off in the edit summary. It's not capitalized as "Schools of Business, Education, and Law" because that makes it seem as if the actual name includes the plural Schools. Instead, standard English usage is to capitalize the proper singulars when preceded by a common plural. That is, it's the "schools of Business, Education, and Law", because Business, Education, and Law are part of the proper name of the institutions. It's the same as if one were to refer to the "secretaries of State, Defense, and Treasury". Esrever (klaT) 04:30, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Real edit
About Bastille Day it was not just a try : it comes from French wiki translation. This day does not refer at all to Bastille Day for us (even if it's the name English people gave to it). It's just the same date. When you « are not sure » thanks to ask before deleting. I'm French and I can tell it's only about celebrating the Republic. If my English is bad thank you to edit but keep the new content. By the way we have a Bastille Feast : not that day ! i should tell in the article too... Please, don't delete it. 14 Juillet is not a feast about the bloody "prise de la Bastille". Short translation of French wiki : this date was holiday because of La Bastille. One century later the Republic (that was new) needed a special event for celebrating, a kind of re-born. The 14th of July was also (and already a festivity) because of la «fête de la fédération» and they pick that same day. They didn't all agree because didn't want it to be associated to the Bastille. // FInally they were right : we don't talk about it we really celebrate Union, Republic, it's a National Feast not at all a celebration of a specific event. DC2en (talk) 14:54, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, the French wiki translation is not very good, no offense, so it was hard for me to make sense of what you wanted to say. I tried to reword it to make it fit standard English usage this time. Esrever (klaT) 15:14, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, there is no offense. About standard English you know more than me... About 14 juillet, the opposite. You may watch our famous fireworks (from the Eiffel Tower) live on paris.fr  around 9pm UTC if you are interested. (a big one, around 30 min of lights+fireworks+music). It always tells a part of History. The funny thing is this year it will be about this birth of Republic. :) First Act will be French Revolution. Then the federation. World Expo in act 3. Then the motto Liberty, Equality, Fraternity outgoing around the world. Ending "The rainbow of all freedoms". Well, this is only if you like fireworks. Too long otherwise. DC2en (talk) 04:14, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Removal of link in Peter Principles
My dear Esrever, I am kindly asking for an explanation why you removed the link? I warmly recommend reading this page (it's not so long) and it will be clear why the link was added under "See also"... Darko.veberic (talk) 21:16, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * For one thing, "See also" is for internal links to other Wikipedia articles, not external links to outside websites. External links go in an a section titled "External links" (if an article doesn't have such a section, feel free to create one). But that's not why I removed the link. You didn't use an edit summary to suggest why you were adding the link in the first place, and it's not really my job, per se, to go read such links myself. If you want to add something like that to an article, you should say in the edit summary why you want to add it. But that's not why I removed the link. Instead, I read the page and don't really see its usefulness. It's an article based on a TV show, and, while it relies on some outside sources, it's mostly just one person's original research. That's why I removed the link. :) Esrever (klaT) 21:27, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

US Airways
Can you keep an eye on the US Airways page? An IP insists that US Airways is joining Oneworld sometime in 2014 (as Oneworld's web page states that US Airways is joining in 2014). Thanks! Snoozlepet (talk) 21:10, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Will do! Esrever (klaT) 22:10, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The airline is indeed joining Oneworld alliance on March 31, 2014 (not as a full member but a member affiliate of AA) as per official Oneworld press release (http://www.oneworld.com/news-information/oneworldnews/-/asset_publisher/QtTQ7EuCzxhd/content/us-airways-to-join-oneworld-on-31-march-2014/maximized?redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.oneworld.com%2Fnews-information%2Foneworldnews%3Fp_p_id%3D101_INSTANCE_QtTQ7EuCzxhd%26p_p_lifecycle%3D0%26p_p_state%3Dnormal%26p_p_mode%3Dview%26p_p_col_id%3Dcolumn-1%26p_p_col_pos%3D2%26p_p_col_count%3D5) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.119.73.36 (talk) 07:56, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "Following completion today of its merger with alliance founding member American Airlines." In other words, US Airways is joining because it is now part of American Airlines. It's not joining as a standalone airline. Esrever (klaT) 14:34, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It also says that the US Airways and its regional subsidiaries are joining as member affiliates of American Airlines so should it be listed under the affiliates section of AA when March 31, 2014 approaches? 68.119.73.36 (talk) 19:16, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Stetlogo.png
Hi Esrever. Just a note to let you know that per a request on Talk:Stetson University College of Law, I have replaced the logo in the article with the 2014 version. As the one you uploaded (File:Stetlogo.png) is no longer linked to the article you'll get a deletion notice saying that it will be deleted as a fair use image no longer used in an article. You won't have to do anything about it. It will be automatically deleted in 7 days. Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 10:25, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

US Airways, again
US Airways is now an affiliate member of Oneworld. Its frequent flyer program is included at Oneworld as if it was a standalone carrier. Since affiliate members's frequent flyer program and benefits are not included, should US Airways be removed from there? Thanks! Rzxz1980 (talk) 21:39, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks! Esrever (klaT) 19:29, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

US Airways headquarters and CEO dispute
Someone keeps changing the headquarter location from Tempe, Arizona to Fort Worth, Texas. Tempe is still the headquarter location as per http://www.usairways.com/en-US/contact/general.html. Do you know who is CEO? However, according to http://www.aa.com/i18n/amrcorp/corporateInformation/facts/structure.jsp (down at the bottom page), Robert Isom is CEO and COO of US Airways. Doug Parker is CEO of the group and AA. I have already requested full protection of the article already. Rzxz1980 (talk) 01:05, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

American Airlines
Tom Horton is indeed stepping down as chairman. Entry is well referenced and sourced and it is not crystal alluded!!!!!!! 166.147.125.13 (talk) 10:52, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No, Tom Horton plans to step down as chairman. Who knows what might happen between now and then? See WP:CRYSTALBALL. Esrever (klaT) 13:19, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * the source specifically says Tom Horton 'will step down as Chaurman the word "plans" is not even mentioned. Please read the source CAREFULLY. 166.147.125.13 (talk) 16:33, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You're missing the point. Read the guideline I linked to above. I agree that in all likelihood Horton will step down on the day in question--I'd bet money on it, in fact. But there's no way of knowing what will happen between now and then. Perhaps Doug Parker will get hit by a bus, perhaps Horton will win the lottery and buy the airline outright, perhaps the world will end. There's no way of knowing what might happen between now and then. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball: we cannot say for sure that Horton will step down on the day in question, and thus, we leave it in place until he does. You're free to mention in the text that he plans to step down, but you cannot present the future as fact. Esrever (klaT) 02:37, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride 2014
Hi Esrever. In case you are not aware, there is an upcoming campaign to improve coverage of LGBT-related topics on Wikipedia, culminating with an international edit-a-thon on June 21. See Wiki Loves Pride 2014 for more information. If you are interested, you might consider creating a page for a major city (or cities!) near you, with a list of LGBT-related articles that need to be created or improved. This would be a tremendous help to Wikipedia and coverage of LGBT culture and history. Thanks for your consideration, and please let me know if you have any questions! -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:00, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for helping!
... and thank you for assuming good faith - definitely not trying to start an edit war with you!

What would you need to consider USC's recent listing prominent (and not just recent)? I could post a ton of links about how campus sexual assault is a prominent issue at USC (e.g. Obama's task force, and increased attention in the Chronicle of Higher Ed), but I don't want to link bomb you if that's not what you mean. Thanks again for helping me! Thebrycepeake (talk) 17:18, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I think these kinds of controversies very much belong in the article somewhere, but I think mentioning them in the lead is giving them undue weight. The reporting around the sexual assault epidemic on American college campuses is relatively recent, and I'd prefer to see how it all develops. That is, are these investigations and their consequences going to prove to be noteworthy events in the university's history? I'm not convinced that they are, actually, in large part because they're so ubiquitous. If USC were the only school to face this kind of inquiry, then I would imagine it would be a big deal. But I think its impact in the context of the USC article is lessened in large part because it's happening everywhere else. Now, if it turns out that USC has been a particularly egregious offender and faces substantial sanctions from the DOE, it would make sense to feature it more prominently. Does that make sense? Esrever (klaT) 18:32, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Edit on Cube (film) changes meaning of original
You have edited the following original:


 * Quentin is torn apart while Worth succumbs to his own wounds and dies seconds later, leaving Kazan alone in the bridge who slowly walks into the bright light.

to the following:


 * Quentin is torn apart while Worth succumbs to his own wounds and dies seconds later, leaving Kazan alone in the bridge and walking slowly into the bright light.

Please correct this edit because it is incorrect and changes the meaning of the sentence. I can tell the grammar of the original is slightly wrong, but your correction is worse.

I have watched the movie and I can ascertain you that it is Kazan who walks into the light, while your correction makes it sound like Worth (leaves Kazan on the bridge and) walks into the light. (PS: Quentin is literally torn apart - his body is split into two and thus he also dies. Kazan is the only survivor.)

When the grammar of the original is corrected, it should be:


 * Quentin is torn apart while Worth succumbs to his own wounds and dies seconds later, leaving Kazan alone in the bridge who walks slowly  into the bright light.

Or you could reword it as follows, for example:


 * Quentin is torn apart while Worth succumbs to his own wounds, dying seconds later. Left alone in the bridge, Kazan  walks slowly  into the bright light.

-- ADTCTalk Ctrb 16:58, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * So fix it. Esrever (klaT) 20:26, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Removed section
I can see the difference that you reverted my edit removing the section off talk page seen this difference that is a talk page are not for commentary on article's subject. Why you reverted it? Oh, and I say "Hi!" to you too! -- Allen  talk  06:48, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * As I noted in my edit summary, article talk pages are for discussion of the article itself: how it might be improved, what needs to change, etc.  They are not a place to leave messages documenting how much you might love or hate a particular article's subject. In this case, it's okay to leave messages saying things like, "We need to improve how the article explains American Airlines' history."  It's not okay to say, "I love American Airlines." Esrever (klaT) 16:02, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh, so that's what the article talk pages related to the article only?! -- Allen  talk  17:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. Esrever (klaT) 18:48, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Citations needed
Well, don't insult me, and don't revert my edits. If it remains unsourced, it will have to be deleted. I am adding citations needed tags in good faith, but I could simply remove the unsourced info and then the burden will be on you to re-add it, if you can provide a source and prove that the info is significant. Yes, a map may work. It's a source. It is not clear AT ALL if it is the only private university in such an athletic conference, and this should be sourced. Also, very easy to add a reference about the Chancellor's name. Zigzig20s (talk) 13:39, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The point isn't whether it's easy. The point is, is this a fact that a reasonable person would believe to be dubious? I'm not sure the chancellor's name would qualify. Again, not every sentence needs a citation. Esrever (klaT) 13:42, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Imagine you're from Japan. Would you have no idea about this obscure athletic conference? Absolutely. Perhaps if you live in Nashville, you would know about it. But that's original research. We need a reference before someone removes the info. This is an encyclopedia, not a member's club.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:49, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * From the OR policy page: "The prohibition against OR means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source, even if not actually attributed." The footnote to that point is even more explicit: "Articles that currently name zero references of any type may be fully compliant with this policy—so long as there is a reasonable expectation that every bit of material is supported by a published, reliable source." Not every sentence needs a source. Esrever (klaT) 13:53, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * "The sky is blue" is not the same as an obscure athletic conference with teenagers. There is no reasonable expectation that that private university or another one would be in this conference; it needs to be cited. Looks like you found a reference though. I "thanked" you for it, even though you insulted me earlier...Zigzig20s (talk) 14:05, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Like I said, I found your whole approach to this extremely off-putting. Esrever (klaT) 14:08, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I find being insulted "extremely off-putting." Totally unacceptable. The page is still dismally lacking in reliable sources btw.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Believe me, plenty of things in that article still need citations. I just don't think some of the things you think are somehow dubious actually fail the "reasonable expectation" test. Esrever (klaT) 14:18, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not about me really. It's about making sure this is encyclopedic, not unsourced ramblings. I may add more referenced info later.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:21, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Robert S. Nelsen
Hi Esrever,

I've started a thread at Talk:Robert S. Nelsen to discuss you recently made to the article. Some of the text you added is exactly the same as what is in a bio for Nelsen posted here on the 2010 Latino Education Conference webpage. I'm sure this is just an innocent misunderstanding, but I thought you should know because it does seem like a copyright violation. Thanks. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:27, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice. I didn't add the text&mdash;I merely consolidated existing text on the page into a standalone section. I have zero interest in what happens to that page. Happy editing. Esrever (klaT) 13:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * My mistake Esrever. I misread the diff. It was indeed an innocent misunderstanding, but one totally on my part. Really sorry about that. - Marchjuly (talk) 21:46, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Jean and Alexander Heard Library
Can you please provide inline references for the history section? I am not sure if it was made up. Thus, the unreferenced claims may end up getting removed from the page.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:01, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If they get removed, they get removed. I still think that's preferable to tagging every single sentence with a fact tag, like you're wont to do. Esrever (klaT) 05:03, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the point would be to cite content. Not remove it. Not say "Oh it's OK, approximatively, perhaps..." for the whole paragraph.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:11, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Literally everything in both paragraphs is from the same page. What is the point in putting a cite after every single sentence? That's not standard practice in any manual of style, including Wikipedia's. Esrever (klaT) 05:15, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Because otherwise anybody could add untrue content in the middle of a paragraph, and only cite the last sentence--the only one which would be true. Anybody can edit Wikipedia and thus add all kinds of lies. That's why we need to be very careful with Wikipedia. Citations are the backbone of Wikipedia articles. Also the fact that the information is apparently taken only from the university's website is very problematic.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:20, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I guess you'll have to look at the cited page, decide if any of the material isn't borne out by the citation, and remove it, then. Alas. Esrever (klaT) 05:22, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Putting citations next to the final punctuation of a sentence doesn't magically make the preceding statement true. That's what the "verification" part of all of this is. Editors provide reliable sources that would allow a reader to verify that the cited material is accurate. If someone really questioned whether Yale helped provide books for a new library, he or she would need to go check the cited page, regardless of whether it's directly at the end of that sentence or at the end of the paragraph. Esrever (klaT) 05:26, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Please try to understand that in order to make Wikipedia a valuable resource, we need to have third party inline references. Sure, these references need to be verified, but most of the time when an editor takes the time to add a reference, it's not made up. The same cannot be said about unreferenced passages. It also makes deletion of content much harder if the content is fully referenced, which is ultimately what is required. Meanwhile, feel free find third party sources from Google Books and other places and embed/inline them in that article. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:13, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to wanting to include more third-party sources. But this insistence that literally every sentence have a citation is just silly, and it's out of whack with what's standard on Wikipedia. Esrever (klaT) 06:17, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * More? There isn't a single one. The article is essentially an advertisement.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:21, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * So certainly feel free to find some to add. Like many of these university-related topics, though, there's not often much that's not provided by the university. This isn't my objection to your editing style, though. I don't care about where the references are from--if you want to tag articles for missing third-party sources, knock yourself out. I object to your strange idea that every sentence needs some sort of citation. Beyond that, I don't really care what you do. Esrever (klaT) 06:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I have explained this. I won't repeat myself because this is tedious. Anyway, I have inlined the advertising reference for now. I have also contacted the editor who created the page, in case they are able to add more third party references. Ciao.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:30, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Porcellian Club
I don't agree with the deletion of the list - for any number of reasons, some of which I will discuss below. The artwork comment is perhaps reasonable and a reference to the sculpture can be substituted, although you have discounted the reasons the sculpture exists in the first place or is placed opposite the Massachusetts State House so prominently, which, as with the design of Trinity Church Boston are entirely a function of Porcellian club connections.

As for the list - This is an unusual institution in that it functioned the same before the war as after and the members maintained close personal and family ties. It has a long operating history and extensive, if secret, records along with multi generational family ties. How such an institution adapted to major world events, and in particular the singular event of American History should be of great interest but is so only in the context of the institution itself. Many of the members are related to each other by family and then by marriage. Given the emphasis in Victorian times of marrying "among your own kind" this was not unusual - but in the context of the Civil War created historically significant overlaps. It has been said this was a cousins war - and linking the military service to this kind of an institution sheds new light on this issue.

You would have noticed from the list that many of the officers from the two sides - North or South - were classmates - while this is not unusual for West Point, this is highly unusual otherwise. The University of North Carolina, for example, contributed officers ONLY to the southern states' militias and regiments. It is only by placing this overview in the context of the club's overall existence that the import becomes clear. A group that includes not only Robert E. Lee's son, himself a general, but also Gen. George Meade is rare. Further, the research is not complete and if the list is deleted it will never be completed as it relies on the contributions of other people in order to be completed. Cross-referencing military service (especially when the actual records are 150 years old) with membership in a small, ultra-secret, highly selective club is painstaking requiring looking up the names one by one. Separating the analysis from the institution will inevitably lead to it being ignored in favor of the main entry. What is apparent thus far is that there appear to be significantly more southern officers than northern - which given that Harvard enlisted 3x ads many men in the north than the south would be a significant fact in understanding the nature of this particular organization.

I would add that it would be of equal appeal and interest to know the service of the members of Skull and Bones during World War II - completion of an article like this will encourage someone else to tackle that question.

Next, I do not think it is unusual in writing about an institution to then highlight the disposition of that institution and its members in the context of world events. For larger groups or institutions, books have been written - several on the topic of Harvard in the Civil War, many more on Harvard and WWII. For a group this idiosyncratic, this may well be the only place it will be written about -- not because it is of no interest, but only that the topic is narrow but interesting and useful only when completed.

I would add a post script that the topic of Harvard's role in the Confederate States is to this day one of high interest to historians and to alumni. Harvard is almost alone in having no memorial to its Southern dead. Yale, by contrast, lists them alphabetically with the northern soldiers. Whether to have one is hotly debated among historians, the African American scholarly community, alumni and others. As so often happens with that institution, issues that occur with regularity everywhere else become ones of national importance when the name "Harvard" is invoked. Exposing, perhaps for the first time, the role that Harvard's elite club members played in the Civil War, North and South, will become part of that debate - this is the only surviving institution of that period and is the most prestigious and select club at that University.

Finally, a great deal of work went into the research and to have it "erased" so to speak, is to put it mildly, not right.

I would suggest putting this in a discussion forum if that is appropriate. In the interim I would ask that you place a note in the article marking it for deletion and pointing to the forum, restore the work and allow it to evolve a bit more. As it is, i think you truncated it awkwardly in mid-sentence and rather than make the correction myself, at a minimum you could revisit your edit. Perhaps it should have its own article - I can't say just yet as the lists are not complete but they have already yielded such gems as Robt. Gould Shaw reporting the death of his friend who fought on the other side at Shiloh --- as I said, commonplace at military academies but not northern universities. --HansDieterUlrich (talk) 01:38, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to revisit my edit for the sake of clarity, but the list of names doesn't belong in the article, complete or not. Wikipedia is not a place to just list people who were involved in particular events, which is essentially what a list of any Civil War veterans based only on club affiliation is. Particularly notable members, like Shaw (and others who have their own Wikipedia articles), certainly do belong in the Porcellian article because of their connection to Porcellian. Certainly much of the analysis you provide above may be relevant to the article, provided, of course, that you can find reliable sources for it. But the list won't pass muster at any level, I'm afraid


 * Also, please place talk page comments at the bottom of the page. :) Esrever (klaT) 01:47, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

UBC Name Change and edits
Hi Esrever:

Thank you for your input with the UBC page. I am new to Wikipedia, and I want to ask why the logo was removed from the page. We thought it would be more accurate since the article is about the law school and not the university in general. It looks like we used the incorrect procedure for the upload? Any advice you can give would be greatly appreciated. Also, the logo has been provided by the university for use on wikipedia. I didn't know how to clarify that in terms of copyright law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitansn (talk • contribs) 22:22, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi there. Thanks for reaching out. So, the logo thing is complicated here. There's Wikipedia, which you're using now, and there's a sort of "umbrella" organization called Wikimedia Commons that is run by the same foundation that runs Wikipedia. Commons hosts images and other media that can be used across all the various Wikipedia projects. But Commons has rules about what kinds of images it can host, which are pretty restrictive, and Wikipedia has slightly more relaxed rules. In general, you cannot upload copyrighted images to Commons, and despite UBC approving the logo for our use, that doesn't mean it's not copyrighted. So, I tagged the file on Commons that was uploaded there (because it's copyrighted) and it will likely be deleted in the near future. Since that means the article would have an empty logo space, I just reverted back to the old logo instead. That doesn't mean you can't use the image on Wikipedia (and only on Wikipedia), though. You just have to upload the copyrighted image to Wikipedia proper. You can start with this page. I hope that helps!


 * One more thing: in general, when you post on a Talk page, you want to "sign" what you've posted by typing four tildes in a row, like this: ~ . Esrever (klaT) 22:34, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

US/AA SOC
On the US Airways page, should we make the page past tense? I know that the FAA will recognize AA and US as one airline on April 8, 2015 but its code, name, reservation systems, and websites will still be separated. There is a discussion at WT:AIRPORT about the upcoming SOC and how we should list the former US Airways flights. Thanks! Citydude1017 (talk) 01:16, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of Matt Bradley (musician)
I resent the fact you went about deleting an article I started about a notorious vocalist of the progressive rock scene just because you do not know him. The article was a stub and I am collecting details about Matt in order to expand the article. Matt was a vocalist in the progressive rock scene, having participate in projects such as Explorers Club and Dalli's Dillemma. Next time, a message would be nice. --Pinnecco (talk) 08:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It's nothing personal. But articles on individuals have to explicitly state why the individual is notable, and that wasn't apparent from the text. I'm not saying that he might not be notable in the end, but the burden is on you, the article creator, to make that point. Esrever (klaT) 13:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

July 2015
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=669578270 your edit] to Patty Hearst may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:45, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * } mentioning his own Synanon mass

You are Right
No, you were right,i was working on my site's SEO and might have accidentally added it.If it is irrelevant,it is better not on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AkshayAnand1997 (talk • contribs) 14:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Regarding American Airlines Flight 550
Should the death of the Pilot on that flight be regarded as an Accident, Incident, or something else? I just want to be respective towards the subject and want to use the correct terms. Thank you for your reply if you do! Adog104 (talk) 23:00, 5 October 2015 (UTC)Adog104
 * I wouldn't put it in the article at all. It's not really encyclopedic information--it's just a blip in the news cycle. Esrever (klaT) 23:00, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * And I certainly wouldn't turn it into a standalone article, while we're on the subject. The pilot died, may he rest in peace, but the plane landed safely, and there's nothing about this that suggests anything about it will be of long-term interest to a reader (or even next-week interest). Esrever (klaT) 23:01, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * However articles of aviation have arose that don't include major incidents or accidents which do expand on the subject. Such as in this flight, more information about the Pilot's illness may come up and information about the aircraft's and crews duty. As well as how the flight was then switched for new crew. This is also a great example (from which news reports go as far as) of why aircraft have both a Captain and a Co-Pilot at all times which could also lead to more information. And I know you might regard me for defending an article I made because of users who defend their newly created pages, but I only want to expand the on information since this does coincide with Current Events and some notability from major news reporters. That's also why I'm refraining from adding it to my user page so far. Adog104 (talk) 23:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC)Adog104
 * You're welcome to write whatever articles you want about aviation--I have a very, very limited interest in the subject. I just can't imagine it's going to rise above the level of trivia, I'm afraid. Esrever (klaT) 23:25, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry and thank you for your input! Adog104 (talk) 23:26, 5 October 2015 (UTC)Adog104

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Stanford Cardinal - That's making my head spin, but thanks
Thanks for reverting my edit. Referring to the team as Cardinal instead of Cardinals is making my head spin, but I guess it makes sense since they're using the color instead of the bird. Gmporr (talk) 05:42, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's a silly team name, I agree! Esrever (klaT) 05:42, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Dalton Seal
Dear Esever,

I am the Communications Director for the Dalton School. We have recently established international trademark status for our seal and logo. Our trademark attorneys insist that we display the ® on the seal wherever it is posted publicly. I have read some of the information on Wikipedia about displaying the trademark, but it is unclear. If you know more about this, can you please clarify the reason you removed the new version that includes the trademark?

Thanks, Jim Jzulakis (talk) 18:52, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I was relying on a somewhat broader interpretation of this guideline, which reads, "Do not use the ™ and ® symbols, or similar, in either article text or citations, unless unavoidably necessary for context." There is no guidance here to suggest that it's either appropriate or inappropriate. More broadly, Dalton's own preferences and rules don't govern what happens on Wikipedia; US copyright and trademark law does. So long as the image is being used in a way that meets fair use, I don't think the school has much say in it. That's just my read on the non-free content criteria, though. Esrever (klaT) 19:11, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the clarification and for the reference to the style. We do not want to post anything that conflicts with WP's protocols. Appreciate your expertise Jzulakis (talk) 18:19, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Martin Heidegger and Nazism
You are entering Heidegger's and similar primordial(primeval) ideas without info about his nazi connections (well proved), what for are you doing such a thing my dear? --94.254.145.18 (talk) 02:14, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't care, frankly, if Heidegger is a Nazi or not. I'd never heard of the guy before reading the Ontology page and don't have opinions on his Nazism in the slightest. But I do know that it's a non sequitur in the course of that particular sentence. It's just a throwaway statement, not something that's actually relevant to the topic being discussed. If the reader is interested in Heidegger's political views, he or she can do by visiting the page on Heidegger. Esrever (klaT) 02:20, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Philosophy is directly linked with politics, communism is philosophy and politics in China, similarly liberalism in many countries, also Plato's Republic is one of main Republican ideology sources, Christian philosophers directly influenced Christian political parties, also lots of Politicians are direct pupils of philosophers (for instance Alexander the Great pupil of Arystoteles) if you do not know anything about philosophy don't touch the content.--94.254.145.18 (talk) 02:26, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I know how to write, and just throwing a reference to Nazism in a sentence doesn't make it good prose. If you want to make the case that it's relevant to the article, make that particular case *in the article*. Esrever (klaT) 02:29, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * it's not a prose it's encyclopedia my dear--94.254.145.18 (talk) 02:31, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You should perhaps look up the meaning of the word prose. Esrever (klaT) 02:32, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You should perhaps look up the meaning of the word Encyclopedia. --94.254.145.18 (talk) 02:34, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, we're done now. Thanks for playing! Esrever (klaT) 02:35, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No we're not. Look into article: "encyclopedia articles focus on factual information" prose is not the goal of encyclopedias, and please give us a source that info about the fact that Hitler or someone else was nazi is a bad prose94.254.145.18 (talk) 02:38, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll try to make this point in another way, since I've got a few minutes to kill tonight. "Prose" is anything that's not poetry. It's just the language with which we write things, like encyclopedias. It adheres to grammar and logic structures. It makes sense when read. Including a throwaway line about Heidegger's Nazi Party membership doesn't make sense in the particular sentence in which you're using it. Yes, he's a Nazi. But so what? Just making the accusation in a sentence doesn't add anything to the reader's understanding of the topic. Even if you were discussing Adolf Hitler's views on ontology, just calling him a Nazi doesn't explain why that's relevant. Esrever (klaT) 04:26, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not an Accusation it's well established and sourced fact. Politics and philosophy/ideology are relevant in obvious sense. - see above. Also see our explanation here: do not be very afraid of "terror" of propaganda of primeval ideas of nazis or racists, nowadays more people are suffering from everyday roads accidents, it's more dangerous. If have some problems go for education and/or more underground not in front of thousands of people every month. Minorities should be protected, not put in dangerous key positions without strong protection (it's Hitler way of saying "see we have a [dis]proof: this minority guy what he is doing in the position we have given to him [and then forcibly bamboozled]") 94.254.145.35 (talk) 04:46, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That's all great, but that's not what Wikipedia is for. Maybe see WP:NPOV. Good luck to you. Esrever (klaT) 04:48, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not for prose its for scientifically proved/sourced facts if you have opposite sources: we (according to our regulations on this encyclopedia) are asking you (now and several times earlier): please provide us and the readers with them and then we can place such a point of view in the article, all is here and in linked pages, read more carefully: WP:NPOV.94.254.145.35 (talk) 04:54, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * As I said before, good luck to you! Esrever (klaT) 04:56, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Same! Post Scriptum: Other (less underground) two ideas (draft) 1. see also: Ultramontanism (think of the real meaning in context of Reductio ad absurdum: decentralization, federalization, more direct democracy but without liquidating scientific/ethical hierarchy (guaranteed by constitution/law and indirectness ("elite" parliament)) without going into historically known way in Europe: constitutional liberal democracy -> paralogy -> liquidation of scientific/ethical hierarchy of large subset of society/state/etc-> libertarianism -> anarcho-kapitalism -> slave work -> racism -> going with nazi and other primordial(primeval) against less  primordial(primeval) although older in external form); 2. "divide [in context of Iris_(mythology)/realistically-with-physics/dynamically/elastically/adaptatively/truly/non_Hitler_like/non-basing-on-external-look-and-simple-feel-simple-interaction-out-of-context-temporally-animal-like-judgement/non-racism-and-other-simple-intrinsic-for-temporally-animal-like-segregation/non-fortune-teller-eugenic-like] and rule" in other words scientific/moral-religious/etc hermeneutics+axiology+other philosophy/science/moral-religions branches and/that-comes-from general interdisciplinary tested/trained All-development intelligence-non-paper-only 94.254.145.35 (talk) 06:43, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

His or Her Honor
I was unclear on your reasoning for this revert at Chief Justice of the United States: "just because they've all been male to this point doesn't mean they always will be". It seems to me that compressing "while that judge holds his or her office" to "while that judge holds office" is still gender neutral, perhaps better as gender agnostic, and certainly better as being more succinct. As for "this reference is not to any specific Chief Justice", the phrase "that judge" still clearly refers to "any judge", so I'm not sure where the phrase unduly specifies a particular judge. In any case, my earlier revert was prompted by ClueBot's false positive for vandalism, so I've left things as you left it, and leave you to reconsider the original edit if you're so inclined. Cheers. Willondon (talk) 10:00, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Gosh, that was just poor reading comprehension on my part. I missed that you removed his, too--I thought you'd taken out just the or her. I agree that the "gender agnostic" language you've proposed works just fine. Esrever (klaT) 16:13, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

FY: Bolding of "Dame" and "Sir".
FYI : Contrary to what you believe, "Sir" and "Dame" are treated as part of a person's name and are bolded in the intro as per the MoS. Regards, Afterwriting (talk) 00:43, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yep, you're right. I checked a couple of other articles this morning, but not the MoS. Esrever (klaT) 00:50, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

American Airlines don't worry
I would not worry about the American Airlines article as my edit today should calm your fears. I do not want to write that American Airlines started in 2013 after the USAirways takeover. I just wrote the accidents section and if I were trying to do what you feared, then the section would say "no crashes". But I didn't do that. So, rest easy. I mainly wanted some discussion about the direction of the article, which is coming in.

Good luck. Ensign Hapuna of the Royal Hawaiian Navy (talk) 20:50, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Great. These comments belong on the article's talk page, though. Esrever (klaT) 20:51, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride 2016
As a participant of WikiProject LGBT studies, you are invited to participate in the third annual Wiki Loves Pride campaign, which runs through the month of June. The purpose of the campaign is to create and improve content related to LGBT culture and history. How can you help?
 * Create or improve LGBT-related Wikipedia pages and showcase the results of your work here
 * Document local LGBT culture and history by taking pictures at pride events and uploading your images to Wikimedia Commons
 * Contribute to an LGBT-related task force at another Wikimedia project (Wikidata, Wikimedia Commons, Wikivoyage, etc.)

Looking for topics? The Tasks page, which you are welcome to update, offers some ideas and wanted articles.

This campaign is supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. The group's mission is to develop LGBT-related content across all Wikimedia projects, in all languages. Visit the affiliate's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Wikipedia, plain and simple, and all are welcome! If you have any questions, please leave a message on the campaign's talk page.

Thanks, and happy editing! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 20:02, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

"The Dalton School"
If The New School can have "The" in the title, the same should apply to Dalton School which, currently incorrect, should include "The." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newyorkerguy (talk • contribs) 02:50, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Please don't fracture the discussion. It should continue on the appropriate article's talk page, not on my talk page. Esrever (klaT) 03:07, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Vanderbilt
Because I was curious if Vanderbilt University uses a latin name – it's on the university seal. I don't care if it is included in the infobox (or article), but you, as well as the I.P., had me curious so I had to look! Corkythe hornetfan  (ping me) 19:09, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Fascinating! And you're right, it certainly is on the seal. I googled the Latin name (both the name itself and "Vanderbilt University Latin name") to try to find something, and neither seemed to turn anything up in a cursory glance. Esrever (klaT) 21:48, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Latin being the language of academia in the 17th/18th century, colleges instituted then used Latin for their seals. Thus, Harvard's "Sigil. Col. Harvard. Cantab Nov. Angl." and Yale's "Sigill. Coll. Yalen. Nov. Port. Nov. Angl.", perhaps also in imitation of institutions that predate them (Cambridge, Oxford, etc.) When Vanderbilt was founded in 1873 it probably had similar reasons: academic panache and imitation of prior universities, all without any intention of use except for seals on official documents. - Nunh-huh 10:00, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

about that rl
Yeah I kind of did that on purpose. She just died and I was surprized that she wasn't already on the list. I could have left it unlinked, or I could have E Lee Hennessee piped it, but neither option felt right and I kind of wanted the oversight noticed. I will try to WRITEIT asap if no one else does, tyTeeVeeed (talk) 19:26, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I figured you did it on purpose--I saw the edit summary. I still wouldn't have added her without the article being written, but I'm a stickler for that sort of thing. Esrever (klaT) 04:15, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Oath of Allegiance (UK Monarchy)
Sorry, when i edited the page i could have sworn it said "his or hers successors" so thanks for the correction.Tamblingb (talk) 11:19, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Template:Vanderbilt University
Yes, it makes sense to include Nashville, which is why it's literally the second line of the template. Putting a city in the middle of a list of buildings doesn't really make any sense, though. kennethaw88 • talk 08:07, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, I just missed it at the top of the box. I didn't think to put it there when I created the darn thing. :P Esrever (klaT) 13:47, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Stanford
§ Hi, I wish to stress a few points.

There are 13 people affiliated with Stanford who have won the Nobel prize. If the source only lists 8 alums, the solution is to find another reliable source. I have found a source and changed the number to 13. Ber31 (talk) 05:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you went out and found a new source, but it still doesn't seem to show 13 alumni who have won the Nobel Prize. Esrever (klaT) 13:14, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I have included 3 more sources. Ber31 (talk) 06:11, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

August 2017
Your recent editing history at Chapin School shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.See article talk page. Any further refusal to abide by the result of the RfCs will be reported at WP:ANI and may result in you being blocked from editing Wikipedia --Guy Macon (talk) 23:12, 16 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't think you understand what an "edit war" is. Esrever (klaT) 23:17, 16 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Nobody cares what you think. Any further refusal to abide by the result of the RfCs I listed on the article talk page will be reported at WP:ANI, which may result in you being blocked from editing Wikipedia. Revert too many times and you will be reported at WP:ANEW, which may result in you being blocked from editing Wikipedia. Now knock it off. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I reverted you once. Any other reverts I made on that page had nothing to do with your edits. As I noted on the article talk page, civilly pointing out to me here that there are existing RFCs on this topic (since your original edit summary was glib and had nothing to do with RFCs) would have been the polite thing to do. Esrever (klaT) 23:41, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I owe you an apology. Please see the page history at Academy for Global Exploration and Chapin School to see where I became confused. (not an excuse, just an explanation). I have stricken the my comments above. Feel free to delete them. Sorry for the error. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:47, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Apology accepted. :) Esrever (klaT) 00:05, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Amy Gutmann page
Hi Esrever, I wanted to reach out directly on your edit regarding the recruitment of former Vice President Joseph R. Biden to the University of Pennsylvania. You stated that pulling him out among the many prominent faculty that Amy Gutmann has recruited in her 13 years at Penn was boosterism and suggested I name other prominent faculty who she has recruited to campus. University Presidents are among the most influential in recruiting top-tier faculty to any University. There could most certainly be a list of all of these, (https://pikprofessors.upenn.edu/meet-the-professors comprise the most prominent of those recruited to the University; Penn's Presidential Term Professors, which are listed individually throughout the Penn website, would be another group). But listing all of these misses precisely the point: Out of a large number of high-profile recruitments to Penn under Amy Gutmann, the VP of the United States clearly stands out. Listing all of the most prominent faculty she has recruited in her time at Penn would not be of use to most readers as these are not household names, however, that does not negate their prominence in their respective fields.

Rather than revert your edit, I wanted to make the request of you directly and give you my reasoning for the request.

Respectfully. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melody8 (talk • contribs) 01:15, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * And again, the page is about Gutmann herself. Singling out one professor, no matter how prominent, is essentially a non sequitur. Esrever (klaT) 01:24, 30 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm new at this mediation process, but I would like to get a third person's opinion on this. I will abide by whatever is decided. But we fundamentally disagree on selecting what professional achievements should be listed on this page. Would you know how to start this process? Thank you 17:24, 30 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I would just post on the article's talk page and let other interested editors way weigh in. Esrever (klaT) 17:25, 30 August 2017 (UTC)


 * The Third Opinion request has been removed (i.e. rejected) because like all other moderated content dispute resolution venues at Wikipedia, 3O requires thorough talk page discussion before seeking assistance. If any editor will not discuss, consider the recommendations which are made here. While discussion here would probably have sufficed to satisfy that requirement had it been more extensive, the discussion really should occur at the article talk page. —  TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 18:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Misleading information
Would you please take care of this? I have been trying to help but the red-linked editor keeps adding misleading information.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:07, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Someone else did. Let's hope it remains stable. You may also want to opine on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities. Thank you!Zigzig20s (talk) 04:17, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Ivy League
Actually, Esrever, there are four cites for the ivy-covered walls -  in the article, where they belong, not in the lede. As for my inferior writing style, I can only abide by your oracular verdict. Valetude (talk) 22:08, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * If you disagree, certainly feel free to raise the issue on the article's talk page. Esrever (klaT) 22:09, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

May 2018
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Skins (UK TV series), without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Dl2000 (talk) 17:25, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * A, don't template the regulars. B, that was undoubtedly related to my trying to edit the article on my phone, not vandalism. Esrever (klaT) 20:26, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * A. Fair enough, I accept your edit wasn't vandalism, so regrets for that one. However that edit was one substantial unexplained deletion so you may want to be more careful on that cellphone; B. there is also template the regulars. Dl2000 (talk) 00:06, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

University of Pennsylvania
My main issues with including Warren Buffett and William Henry Harrison on the University of Pennsylvania "Notable People" page.

· Warren Buffet transferred out of University of Pennsylvania after one year of studies. His degrees come from University of Nebraska and Columbia University.

· William Henry Harrison dropped out of the University of Pennsylvania after only one semester. This is hardly an association to the university.

I have a hard time justifying putting pictures of these individuals when they 1) don't hold a degree from the institution 2) have no significant association with the institution (e.g. a football/basketball player who forgoes graduating to enter professional sport after representing their university in competitive sport)

Let me know what you think. Hellishscrubber (talk) 13:44, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't have strong feelings about them at all. But you didn't make this case in the edit summary, so I added them back. If you want broader consensus, post on the article's talk page. Esrever (klaT) 13:49, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

The British Order of the Garter
Dear Esrever,

The Wikipedia page on The Order of the Garter informs us of the following:

"The Order of the Garter (formally the Most Noble Order of the Garter) is an order of chivalry founded by Edward III in 1348 and regarded as the most prestigious British order of chivalry".

The information I added informing the reader of the number of Holy Roman Emperors who were members of this Order (with appropriate references) is a relevant historical fact.

Your actions in removing this information are questionable.

Wikipedia is here to inform the reader.

Your actions do not.

Please justify why you insist on removing relevant information on this most Noble Order of Knights.

Best Rgds,

William

Bill stradling (talk) 09:38, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Because I don't think it's relevant. There is no other group that gets a listing of all of its historical members, and I think it unlikely that anyone coming to the Garter page is coming there specifically to see a list of Holy Roman Emperors who were allegedly members. Regardless, please continue this discussion on the article's talk page. Esrever (klaT) 14:29, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Take part in a survey
Hi Esrever

We're working to measure the value of Wikipedia in economic terms. We want to ask you some questions about how you value being able to edit Wikipedia.

Our survey should take about 10-15 minutes of your time. We hope that you will enjoy it and find the questions interesting. All answers will be kept strictly confidential and will be anonymized before the aggregate results are published. Regretfully, we can only accept responses from people who live in the US due to restrictions in our grant-based funding.

As a reward for your participation, we will randomly pick 1 out of every 5 participants and give them $25 worth of goods of their choice from the Wikipedia store (e.g. Wikipedia themed t-shirts). Note that we can only reward you if you are based in the US.

Click here to access the survey: https://mit.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_eXJcEhLKioNHuJv

Thanks

Avi

Researcher, MIT Initiative on the Digital Economy --Avi gan (talk) 00:35, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Vanderbilt University College of Arts and Science for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Vanderbilt University College of Arts and Science is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Vanderbilt University College of Arts and Science until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ElKevbo (talk) 02:18, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

U of P
I see that you reverted "U of P", well known by those associated with the University of Pennsylvania. What specific citation would please you with regard to "U of P". Wa3frp (talk) 18:09, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * There doesn't seem to be any evidence that this is a widespread term that anyone uses to refer to Penn. It's not used in news articles, the university doesn't use it, student groups don't use it, athletics doesn't use it--it's not a thing. Where have you gotten the notion that it is used? Esrever (klaT) 18:11, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You can look here:

http://writing.upenn.edu/wh/calendar/0801.html

https://www.facilities.upenn.edu/maps/art/peace-symbol

http://dla.library.upenn.edu/dla/archives/image.html?id=ARCHIVES_20060428010&

https://archives.upenn.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/19720609fac.pdf - uses U. of P.

https://www.facilities.upenn.edu/sites/default/files/pdfs/penn_campus_map_download.pdf

https://archives.upenn.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/upb7_42.pdf

and if these citations do not satisfy, please give the criteria that you feel necessary. I am not sure of your affiliation with the University of Pennsylvania. However, this is well known to me and others. Wa3frp (talk) 18:35, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I buy that people use it as an abbreviation from time to time, but there's nothing to suggest this is in common parlance as an actual nickname people use (and that would thus need to be highlighted in the opening sentence). Nobody says, "I went to U of P." The NYT doesn't say things like, "Mr. Smith, a U of P alumnus from 1996, believes in ghosts." Penn doesn't write, "Dr. Gutmann has been president of the U of P for 20 years." The phrase just is not used that way. Perhaps it once was, I dunno. But there just doesn't seem to be any evidence that it's anything other than an abbreviation. Esrever (klaT) 19:49, 8 April 2020 (UTC)


 * https://www.nytimes.com/1969/05/20/archives/u-of-p-gives-3187-degrees.html?searchResultPosition=2 Wa3frp (talk) 20:14, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure a one-column headline from 50 years ago really shows that this is a common nickname . . . Esrever (klaT) 20:39, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You touted a "fact" that the NYT would not use U of P. I proved that "fact" incorrect Give me a reason why you are being such a brute.  Do you feel that you somehow "own" the University of Pennsylvania" article and that you are the arbiter of what can and cannot get posted? I can give you both internal and external use of "U of P" but I am getting the strong feeling that since you don't like "U of P", you will revert ANY change I make. Wa3frp (talk) 21:37, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, I don't think anything you've provided actually suggests this is a thing that's widely used. It's not clear to me why you think it is. You're welcome to seek consensus at the article's talk page, but I'm not sure you've built a convincing case. *shrug* Esrever (klaT) 21:42, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

References on talkpages
This edit of yours popped up on my watchlist. Not sure if you knew about reflist-talk as a modern solution. DMacks (talk) 18:23, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah--I did not. That'll be handy for the future. Thanks! Esrever (klaT) 18:24, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! Happy editing. DMacks (talk) 19:20, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

1987 Viking Sally murder - italics for ship name
Hi.

I notice that you added back in the '' s that I had removed from the following line in the article:



with the comment italics for ship name.

The distinguish template already outputs the 'Not to be confused with' message in italics. Therefore Wiki sees your first '' as 'end of italics' and your second as 'start italics', thus meaning the ship name is rendered in normal case in the middle of an otherwise italic piece of text. I'm guessing from your comment that you hadn't realised that, and thought you were actually putting the ship name into italics, rather than taking the italics off it.

In case that is not the case, and there is some well hidden special case wikipedia convention to render ship names in normal case when they are in the middle of block of already italic text, I'll leave you to decide whether to revert your change or not. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 10:18, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Nope, I knew it would do that. That’s how italicized things are set off in italicized text: by putting them back into roman type. That’s a standard convention on Wikipedia and, well, everywhere else. Esrever (klaT) 15:10, 11 February 2021 (UTC) Esrever (klaT) 15:10, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Oh, Ok. That is news to me, but then I've only been editing WP since 2004. Just out of interest, could you point me at the relevant policy or MoS entry?. TIA. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 19:12, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Congratulations on your longevity. I'm not sure how best to respond to your question because it's sort of self-evident from the editing software. You italicize vessel names. When italics are present in otherwise italicized text on Wikipedia, they go back to roman ("plain") text, because that is the normal, expected behavior. Reverse italicization isn't something I invented out of whole cloth: there are style guides elsewhere that talk about it. Esrever (klaT) 19:25, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikimedia Images on "University of Pennsylvania" section 'Art Installations' subsection
Thank you for taking the time to review a number of changes and additions I made. You have much more Experience than me and I have "thanked" you for almost all your changes. There is one exception regarding the images I had carefully searches for in Wikimedia Commons and placed in exact location in 'Art Installations' subsection of "University of Pennsylvania"  section. Indeed, all of the images are photos taken at Penn and are sited immediately below the text, which reports about them. I used what I did with Covenant as the 'model" for what to do. Some of the images took me days to find the exact image at Penn (as Robert Indiana "Love" sculpture has dozens of examples all over the nation). I would have deferred to your decision about all image removal without question IF your reason had been anything other than that you removed them since you state that they are not anywhere near relevant text. Indeed, I was very sensitive to that issue and places them right after the text. I respectfully request that you look back at where the images you removed are below the text and see if you may have been too hasty to remove. I will put back one of the examples and see whether you agree. An image I will not put back for a few years if ever is one of Louise Nevelson sculpture image of 'Atmosphere XII' at Art Museum (as art was just installed at Penn last year). I will wait to see if I can find legal image at Penn. Thanks for taking the time to edit my work. I am a mere novice compared to you. OneMoreByte (talk) 11:53, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, you put the images by the text in the wiki editor window. But if you look at the actual article, the pictures themselves appear much, much farther down in the text, in the coordinated dual-degree section. That's because there are A, too many images in the article already; and B, they don't alternate as they should (one on the right, then one on the left, then on the right, etc.). Thus, the images get pushed farther and farther down on the righthand side. Esrever (klaT) 17:35, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Dartmouth College Featured article review
I have nominated Dartmouth College 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. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  19:00, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Queering Wikipedia 2021 User Group Working Days: May 14–16
The Wikimedia LGBTQ+ User Group is holding online working days in May. As a member of WikiProject LGBT studies, editing on LGBTQ+ issues or if you identify as part of the LGBTQ+ community, come help us set goals, develop our organisation and structures, consider how to respond to issues faced by Queer editors, and plan for the next 12 months.

We will be meeting online for 3 half-days, 14–16 May at 1400–1730 UTC. While our working language is English, we are looking to accommodate users who would prefer to participate in other languages, including translation facilities.

More information, and registration details, at QW2021 .--Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group 02:43, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

IP block exempt
I have granted your account an exemption from IP blocking&#32;for a period of 1 year. This will allow you to edit the English Wikipedia through full blocks affecting your IP address when you are logged in.

Please read the page IP block exemption carefully, especially the section on IP block exemption conditions. Inappropriate usage of this user right may result in revocation. I hope this will enhance your editing, and allow you to edit successfully and without disruption. - TheresNoTime 😺 10:26, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Esrever (klaT) 20:32, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Please contact me joshycash@gmail.com
Please I have need of your wisdom on a matter of the Earldom of Mar. 166.181.248.148 (talk) 16:23, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks again for fixing my changes on Inter Milan page. The "O" and the "E" were my mistakes. Sorry for my English. Igts2ane Igts2ane (talk) 21:21, 12 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Happy to help! Esrever (klaT) 22:10, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

On your removal of my edit on Max Lytvyn
I saw you recently undid my edit where I added Max Lytvyn to the Notable people section of Vanderbilt University. In your description you said, "please don't people who don't have their own articles on WP." However, this does not make much sense since there are other people listed in this Notable people section who do not have their own Wikipedia articles, including Kelly Campbell, Gazi Erçel, and Bijaya Nath Bhattarai. You can CTRL+F in Vanderbilt University's WP page and find these people yourself to see that they do not have their own Wikipedia pages. I took this into account before I added the Max Lytvyn edit. I believe he is notable enough given that he has a net worth of 4 billion dollars and is the cofounder of one of a widely used technological service (i.e. Grammarly). — Preceding unsigned comment added by BugsMeanee (talk • contribs) 02:05, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Great, I'm happy to remove them, too. The problem with these "notable people" lists is that they grow every time someone discovers a new alum with a connection to a university. One easy way to shorten those lists is to remove people who aren't notable enough for their own articles. Esrever (klaT) 02:50, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
For you

Mattsnod1993 (talk) 03:10, 21 April 2022 (UTC) 

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)