User talk:ElKevbo/Archive 14

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Talkback

Hello, ElKevbo. You have new messages at Talk:University at Buffalo, The State University of New York.
Message added 19:14, 2 November 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Mtking^(edits) 19:14, 2 November 2011 (UTC=)

Student Loans

The policy provides that:

Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.

The cited source is from an academic expert on bankruptcy and credit markets who has been published in reputable journals. The source is therefore reliable under Wikipedia's policies.

West Point cadet sword

Kevin,

You really did a nice job in cleaning up the article. I do not understand why you deleted a fair amount of the article.

I feel that some of the deleted information as in the Example below should not of been removed as it directly relates to the article. "Today the West Point cadet officer is the only person in the Army who wears a sword and sash, the sole guardian of the tradition.

This is just one of several points that I believe are truly related to the contents of the article that were omitted. I would like to see the information about the new model 2011 replaced and one or two other points. I would like to see the external links replaced.

I agree that several statements really were not directly related, I've been to close to it for a long time and I've asked for help. I'm glade that you are here to render it. My only interest is that this is totally accurate complete and to the point.

I have a 100's of photo's but I can not post them as I do not want problems with copy rights. I've been promised by the Armory at West Point and at Springfield to get the photos once they scan them. The Academy, Museum, Armory and Graduates have been aware of this and have been helpful for years.

Are you an expert on this subject?

I'm looking forward to this being completed.

Thanks

Andy 65.35.76.202 (talk) 02:54, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I remember correctly, nearly all of the material I removed was removed because it was unsourced. If you can add information that is supported by reliable sources, please do so!

I think I removed the links because they were out of line with our policies regarding external links. Please remember that Wikipedia articles should not simply contain lists of links but only very carefully curated collections of links that are particularly useful for readers and contain information that can't be added to the article.

I'm not a content expert but I am quite familiar with Wikipedia policy and culture so please let me know if I can help further! ElKevbo (talk) 08:25, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin,

Please check out the changes to see if the are correct before I go on..

Thanks

Andy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andy2159 (talk • contribs) 17:43, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin, Yes the information is old but they do no change things so fast and they still do it today, there is no newer information so just what do I have to come up with for it to be acceptable.. AndyAndy2159 (talk) 20:22, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin, This is a copy of part of page 40 of Todds Cadet Gray.

"Today the West Point officer is the only man in the army who wears a sword and sash, the sole guardian of the tradition"

The Photo's of any Cadets dress for inspection today would prove that this fact is as true today as it was 60 plus years ago. So just how would you work this in. I could get a letter from The head of the Armory at the Academy to prove that this fact is still true today. Andy2159 (talk) 02:36, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm copying this to the Talk page for the article so we can be sure that everyone interested in the article can see and possibly join the discussion. I'll reply there. ElKevbo (talk) 07:03, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin,

I removed a name as I'm sure he would not like everyone to have it, but he is there just the same. Thanks Andy

65.35.76.202 (talk) 15:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin, Cadet Gray by Todd was the last book. There is one in the works but that's 2 years away.Andy Andy2159 (talk) 17:37, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please reply on the article's Talk page? Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 18:09, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin,

I just found out the the book Cadet Gray: A Pictorial History Of Life At West Point As Seen Through Its Uniforms by Frederick P. Todd , Frederick Teddy Chapman (Illustrator) Has been republished May 9, 2011 hard cover $37.36 with paperback released October 15, 2011 at $ 19.84 by Literary Licensing. LLC

This book can be found at barnesandnoble.com ISBN-13: 9781258123567 ISBN: 1258123568

Will this change things?

Andy Andy2159 (talk) 02:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andy2159 (talk • contribs) 02:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, probably! Great find and good news! ElKevbo (talk) 04:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin,

I have a reference to The new issue the model 2011 a copy which was deleted for lack of references, My reference for this is one of the three external links I added. The reference is at about.com in a story by Joel Baglole who writes about the West Point Cadet Sword at http://usmilitary.about.com/od/weapons/a/cadetsword.htm

He also said that

"Guardians of Tradition Officer Cadets at West Point are the only people in the U.S. Army who continue to wear a sword and sash. As such, West Point cadets are referred to as "Guardians of Tradition" by the U.S. Army."

If your not going to accept Todd new release than would this help as a second reference?

I would like to add the information that I used before it is below, you can review what the link said, I just think I said it better.

Model 2011 Sword

A new model of cadet sword is expected to be issued by West Point in autumn 2011. It will be the military academy’s first new cadet sword since 1922. The new sword will be stronger than previous versions the Spec's are higher with greater quality. It will not fold in half at the hilt as the old one did.

When a cadet officer stands at present arms he should be able to read the words "Duty, Honor and Country in the cross guard around engraved around Athena helmet clearly". This is one reason the sword has been redesigned.

West Point will hold a ceremony to introduce the new sword to its senior cadets. The new sword is as again being manufactured to a higher specification by WKC Stahl und Metallwarenfabrik, a company based in Solingen, Germany.

The West Point Cadet sword is copyrighted by the U.S.M.A. It is illegal to reproduce or sell the swords are only sold or issued at the West Point cadet store. West Point Book store issues the cadet swords to all students they must be returned by the Cadet at the end of their senior year. However, any student or alumnus of West Point, can purchase a new cadet sword from the West Point Book Store[10] or the WS4[7] [

So not only will it look different but will be a better quality Sword.[11]

Thanks

AndyAndy2159 (talk) 05:20, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you post that in the article's Talk page and include the references, please? That will help everyone interested in the article see what's going on. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 05:40, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin please check out my changes Thanks AndyAndy2159 (talk) 16:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

University of Delaware

The vandalism revert was for "University of Delawhere", which you missed in your reversion. I also reverted the "UDel" reference as I have never heard this term used in the community.Wkharrisjr (talk) 19:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the mistaken reversion - sorry about that! But I *have* heard UDel used to refer to the university. In fact, I first heard it from several University of Delaware staff members; I think they (jokingly) referred to themselves as "those crazy UDel women." I seem to remember hearing it in other contexts, too, likely at other higher education or academic conferences. I don't think it's far-fetched at all considering the institution's domain name is udel.edu. "UDel" is not very easy to search for online since it's part of the domain name but there are definitely some hits indicating that it's used by some people e.g. http://www.facebook.com/pages/UDel-Venture-Center/193344537366418 and http://www.facebook.com/pages/UDel-Thompson-Hall-2010/128189473893032#!/pages/UDel-Thompson-Hall-2010/128189473893032?sk=info. 20:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi, this message is to let you know about disambiguation links you've recently created. A link to a disambiguation page is almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.

Study (room) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

was linked to Den

Any suggestions for improving this automated tool are welcome. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:08, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

California State Polytechnic University, Pomona

I don't know if you've seen it yet, but a vandal has taken on the name User:ElKevmo and edited the Cal Poly Pomona article. FYI . . . I've mentioned your name at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fapmaster2014 because they used that slightly altered version of your user name. Regards, 72Dino (talk) 16:59, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I dropped a request for the editor to be blocked at AIV but I don't know if they've taken action or if they will take action (the AIV regulars can be really picky and arbitrary sometimes). ElKevbo (talk) 17:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Albumcaps

I am requesting your further input here (or wherever the discussion may end up).—Ryulong (竜龙) 00:23, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Undid revision 461056363 by ElKevbo (talk)Do not remove good information solely because it is poorly presented; instead, improve the presentation by rewriting the passage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editing_policy

Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required

Policy shortcuts: WP:IMPERFECT WP:PERFECTION Perfection is not required: Wikipedia is a work in progress. Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome. For instance, one person may start an article with an overview of a subject or a few random facts. Another may help standardize the article's formatting, or have additional facts and figures or a graphic to add. Yet another may bring better balance to the views represented in the article, and perform fact-checking and sourcing to existing content. At any point during this process, the article may become disorganized or contain substandard writing. This principle is not as broadly endorsed for biographies of living persons. While such articles are also allowed and expected to be imperfect, any contentious unsubstantiated or patently biased information in such articles should be removed until verified or rewritten in a neutral manner.

John Wooden Mentored Denny Crum starting in 1956-57 if it wasnt for Wooden he wouldnt of went to Louisville coached there 30 years and w0n 675 games and 2 NCAA Championships. You need to follow edit rule and not delete stuff rewrite it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.2.252.159 (talk) 04:15, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Take it up in the article's Talk page, please. Multiple editors in good standing have objected to your addition so now it's up to you to convince enough editors to reach a consensus. And just in case you're wondering, WP:BRD is the community norm in these situations as this is a collaborative project. ElKevbo (talk) 04:20, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Darrell K Royal Texas Memorial Stadium Vandalism

Thanks for the help in removing the constant vandalism to the DKR-TMS page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brint03 (talk • contribs) 05:17, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! I also asked that it be semi-protected so we won't have to do that as much, at least for a while. ElKevbo (talk) 05:22, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just undid your last edit to it, as it broke the hyphens, the capitalization in a header, an interwiki link, and the commons link. Perhaps you undid one edit too many? --Philosopher ^Let us reason together. 05:54, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I probably did undo one edit too many - it's been a real mess the last couple of days with a lot of vandalism. Thanks for helping out and cleaning up after me! ElKevbo (talk) 06:01, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of MobileEd.org from mlearning entry: Revision as of 21:01, 18 November 2011 (edit):

Hi, Kevin. I see you deleted the entire entry on MobileEd.org under "Relevant organisations" on the mlearning Wikipedia page. Reason cited was "link spam." I am new to editing Wikipedia, but how is the MobileEd.org entry that different from the "The International Association for Mobile Learning" entry under the same sub-topic, and if the link were for some reason the problematic issue, why delete the entire entry? How can I improve this entry so that it might be included? Thanks. --Richard http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MLearning&diff=prev&oldid=461356240 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rscullin (talk • contribs) 16:21, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Content in Wikipedia articles should be supported by reliable, verifiable sources. If you can provide such sources, preferably third-party ones, please feel free to add the material and the sources to the article! ElKevbo (talk) 17:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peace College

Doesn't this article show that the school has changed its name?Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 16:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it only shows that one media organization is now calling the institution "Peace University." The institution's own webpage still says "Peace College" and that seems more authoritative than a lone newspaper. Are there other sources using "university," too? The institution's website is vague and says only that it will make the change "in 2011." ElKevbo (talk) 16:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did notice the web site even without clicking on it.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At what point do we move the article? Text throughout the article has the change. I haven't looked at the sources that might have made the change.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 17:32, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Their own website still refers to the institution as "Peace College" so it seems that the name change has not yet occurred. So I changed the name in the article back to college. ElKevbo (talk) 20:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that makes sense.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:13, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Gardner external links

Hi, vicoduomo here. In reference to the item titled "Robert Gardner (academic) you have raised an issue, I believe, about impartiality. May I request that identify specific parts of the material which may require further collaboration. As indicated in an earlier communication I understand that the information has been vetted by the Academic Group and the Media Producers group (the names may not be exact) and approved. I'll look forward to your reply. Vicoduomo (talk) 17:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the issue was that you added links to several articles that were unnecessary and inappropriate. We're pretty cautious about adding external links to articles and try to keep them to a minimum. It might be helpful to read over our policy regarding external links. ElKevbo (talk) 17:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm not at all sure what you mean when you say that "the information has been vetted by the Academic Group and the Media Producers group." ElKevbo (talk) 17:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, vicoduomo again. Thank you for guidance. It would be helpful if you would point out the specific links which you feel are inappropriate. As a media person most of my "publications" were on television and currently on the web. For example I am writing a series of articles for Dialogue Magazine on Maria Montessori (See The Maria Montessori No One Knows). At the moment I'm researching an article for publication on bullying (Working Title:Bullying the Bully). We've had a recent spate of suicides in Canadian schools and I've been asked to research the issue. I've also been asked to contribute an article called "Invisible Diversity" (based, largely, on the work of Dr. Howard Gardner, again for Dialogue. Dialogue is a print and online magazine which serves the private and independent school sector in Canada. The Larino: Miracle of the Molise site was the site that led to me being awarded the Silver Wing by the Italian municipality of Larino, Molise. As you can see for the site the articles I write are wide-ranging and are related to the phase of my career as a writer and producer. I've always combined my academic career (as the Chair of the School of Radio and Television Arts, Faculty of Communication and Design, Ryerson University) with a lively and active publication thrust. The main focus, however, was always education in one form or another. That's my passion. Hope this is helpful. Truly, if you wish further information on any particular item (production or publication) I will provide you with the best data possible. I truly respect this process and I salute your efforts to keep Wikipedia "on the level". I feel fortunate, at age seventy-three, to be as so involved in my community. The wonderful thing about significant academic training is that it continually fuels a fascinating career. vicoduomo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vicoduomo (talk • contribs) 19:01, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's often better to add information from a source to an article and then cite that source than to just add it as an external link. It might be helpful to ask yourself "What do I think readers should learn from this [webpage, video, etc.]?" and then add that information directly to the article instead of adding the source as an external link and hoping that readers will pick up on it themselves. In general, we only add external links to articles if we can't or shouldn't use the link as a reference. Does that help? (And feel free to post a question on the Talk page of the specific article to which you'd like to add the link; other editors may had opinions different from mine!) ElKevbo (talk) 19:27, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

vicoduomo here. Yes, that makes sense. I'll keep this advice in mind as I review the material. Actually I do believe the footnote form is far more precise. I'll update you on any changes I make during the next few days. This was very helpful. 67.68.46.46 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]

You're welcome! I'm happy to help and provide some advice but please don't think you need my approval or anything. Be bold and make edits; if someone disagrees or disapproves then it's easy to back off and discuss! ElKevbo (talk) 21:41, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on Princeton Uni Edits

Hello, when you had reverted my edits, you said that the rankings are 'stratified'. May I ask why? Abhijay ^Talk?/_Deeds 15:55, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first thing that USN&WR does with their rankings is to divide the colleges and universities into different groups. They then rank institutions within those groups. So you can't say that an institution is "the best in the country" because you only know that it's the best in its category.

Additionally, you'd need a whole lot more than just one ranking from one year to claim that an institution is consistently ranked among the best. ElKevbo (talk) 04:32, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ok thanks ElKevbo. Since this is the first time it's been brought to my attention that I will need to provide more than just one reference, I'll keep that in mind the next time I make such a good-faith edit. Abhijay ^Talk?/_Deeds 06:33, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Glad I could help. :) ElKevbo (talk) 12:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No Problem :) Abhijay ^Talk?/_Deeds 13:14, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

URAP ranking entries

Dear Sir, You have deleted my entries regarding University Ranking by Academic Performance (URAP) for universities due to spam links. However, the links are all alive and directs the user to URAP official website. There is nothing about spamming in the website. Could you please let me know how to add such ranking information on universities' websites? Best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oguzhanalasehir (talk • contribs) 19:36, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why the ranking should be added to any article. How is this notable? Do others publish and publicize these rankings? Are they accepted by experts in the field? ElKevbo (talk) 19:38, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you check these universities' wiki pages, you can see that there are "Ranking" sections where you can find university's position in many rankings. That is why I have inserted these entries. There is any organization or expert who can say that any ranking is valid or acceptable. However, URAP's website indicates that they have a team consisting of academic members. Please check this website http://www.urapcenter.org/2011/team.php. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oguzhanalasehir (talk • contribs) 20:25, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know other rankings are in many articles. As far as I can tell, those other rankings are ones that are widely used by media and experts in the field. Just because something is published somewhere doesn't mean that should add it to articles. ElKevbo (talk) 20:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Corona del Mar High School

It appears you've been involved in trying to correct the run amok Controversies section of this article. Will you please check out the Talk page? We're trying to pare that section down and take out the disparaging opinions, particularly the last sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.61.51 (talk) 16:47, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

University seals

Any chance you could give me a hand in handling another university seal situation at the University at Albany, SUNY page? A university IP has repeatedly removed it and has refused to discuss. Thanks. – Connormah (talk) 23:09, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to keep an eye on it and revert the editor until he or she either talks or edit wars long enough with enough editors to warrant blocking. Please let me know if things kick up again and I don't notice! ElKevbo (talk) 05:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Full Sail University

Hi ElKevbo, you may recall our earlier conversation over at Talk:Full Sail University. I have since proposed new versions of the Academics, Student life and Noted people sections; however I haven’t received a response in the past couple of days. I am looking to reach consensus. Would you be willing to join in on the more recent conversation at Talk:Full_Sail_University#Academics.2C_Student_Life.2C_and_Noted_People? Thank you, --Tylergarner (talk) 15:56, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be ok if I made edits directly to your sandbox? I'll make them one at a time so you can easily revert any with which you disagree. And if there are substantial or complex issues that go beyond a simple, straight forward edit, I'll leave you a note instead. ElKevbo (talk) 18:02, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are more than welcome to make changes to my sandbox. --Tylergarner (talk) 18:57, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making those adjustments in the sandbox. I’ve made a few follow-up revisions myself, but have not yet been able to reach consensus on the Full Sail University article’s talk page. If you have time, would you be willing to add your two cents to that conversation? --Tylergarner (talk) 14:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Corona del Mar High School

Read the Talk page before you delete my tags. Even Qwryxian admits: "Finally, though, a point I think we can agree on (yeah!): the chronology does seem to be wrong."68.4.61.51 (talk) 18:37, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then address that and fix it rather than attack other editors and campaign to remove it entirely, a proposition that you already know won't fly. ElKevbo (talk) 18:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism ] Cheers! --Guy Macon (talk) 09:00, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Harvard

Just wanted to give you a heads up about a discussion at Talk:Harvard University regarding the use of "prestigious" in the lead. Madcoverboy (talk) 19:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The List of oldest universities in continuous operation NPOV issue (again)

Hello,

I would like to inform you that the NPOV discussion about the List of oldest universities in continuous operation, to which you participated was reopened on the NPOVN.

The current discussion is ongoing on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#The List of oldest universities in continuous operation (again).

Regards,
--Omar-Toons (talk) 09:10, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gloucester County College

Hi. Could you take a look at the Gloucester County College from a college/university (including style guide) point of view, including at the Talk page with its ratings and my thoughts on expansions? If you're too busy with other things, I understand. Thanks very much in any event! Allens (talk) 16:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Offhand, I don't see any glaring issues. Is there anything in particular about which you have concerns or would like input? ElKevbo (talk) 00:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a couple of things. First, should it be expanded any further (see the talk page for some examples of things to expand it with, generally following the University style guide), or would it be too long? Second, should it be rated higher than Start-class? Thanks... and good point on the external links, now that I think about it! Allens (talk) 03:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SOPA initiative text

The text discussion is available at Wikipedia:SOPA initiative/Proposed Messages. See the lower sections for more recent information.   — C M B J   11:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 20:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney University Press

I'm puzzled by your assertion of "blatant self-promotion by Sydney University Press". I reverted to be safe. But if there's a valid reason, may I ask what it might be?-- Obsidi♠n Soul 23:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First, "I don't understand your edit but I reverted it anyway" seems to be the exact opposite of assuming good faith so please don't that again. In fact, if you had looked at my recent contributions you probably would had realized why I made that edit.

Second, I removed the book from the article because it was originally added by User:Syd.uni.press, an editor that appears to be (a) a role account (b) editing solely to promote books published by his or her employer. That behavior is unacceptable, inappropriate, and likely results in low-quality edits to our articles so I have reverted or removed all of his or her contributions.

If you have personally read the book and believe it is a good resource for readers of that article then it certainly seems appropriate for you to edit the article to retain the book. If you have not read the book and can not vouch for its quality and relevance then your edit seems entirely inappropriate and inadvisable. I have no interest in the topic and I am not watching the article so I trust you will make the appropriate choice. ElKevbo (talk) 00:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First, I did AGF. But with both parties. I AGFed with the previous editor as the book does seem to be related to the topic in question. And I AGFed with you, I did ask didn't I? It's easier and politer than examining contribution lists and playing detective. I'm not much for antivandalism.

That said, thanks for the explanation, I agree and have reverted myself.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 01:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

sorry

Third time this has happened to me, but have seen it a lot in the past few months. Clearly your edit went through after I hit "preview" and Wikipedia seems to glitch sometimes in such cases. Collect (talk) 15:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem; I figured it was just a weird edit conflict or accident. ElKevbo (talk) 15:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3RR at Arne Duncan

Warning redacted. User:Yunshui|Yunshui]] 雲‍水 15:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reversions of BLP-violating material are exempt from 3RR. ElKevbo (talk) 15:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. Apologies. Yunshui 雲‍水 15:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Comstock

Having warned the edit warriors, I have unprotected the article. If you are willing to work on it, that would be most welcome. FYI see User talk:Academicjc where the subject asks for it to be deleted, and the WP:BLP/N entry (about four up from the bottom, linking doesn't work because of a collapse box further up). Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know! I've cleaned up the article quite a bit. One of the edit warriors has already made a dramatic edit so we'll need to keep an eye on things. ElKevbo (talk) 04:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

APA Style

Hey, ElKev. I renewed the discussion of APA style on the talk page. It looks like there was a previous discussion that did not end in consensus. Therefore its best not to cut material until a consensus is reached about it. I invite your contribution and will happily abide by a consensus reached. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avalongod (talk • contribs) 05:34, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That seems backward but whatever. Be sure to address policy in your discussion on the article's Talk page. ElKevbo (talk) 05:39, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wesleyan

Noted your comment, read the talk page discussion and then reverted you, sorry. You say that it is "trivial" (which I agree with) & therefore I've used that as the basis for removal rather than the obvious synthesis. You can turn those rankings into anything you want to say, or not say as the case may be. I do not think that the article talk page is the correct venue to discuss this productively but feel free to let me know if it has been discussed at some more centralised place (WP:NPOVN or whatever). - Sitush (talk) 18:41, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? First you blatantly ignore WP:BRD and now you're asserting that the article's Talk page is not the proper venue for discussing the issue? So you're insisting that you're right, you're willing to edit war about it, and you won't discuss it in the article's Talk page. WTF?

You're the one edit warring and ignoring the typical ways in which we conduct ourselves so it's incumbent on you to justify your actions. If you want to discuss it on a noticeboard, start the discussion (and be sure to explain why you're allowed to edit war about this AND refuse to use the article's Talk page). Then let us know that you've started the discussion by posting to the article's Talk page since you refuse to discuss it there. ElKevbo (talk) 19:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't see your response before posting a message at Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Wesleyan_University and then noting that on the article talk page. It needs more eyes, imo. Get it sorted there and we have a rock-solid defence for inclusion/exclusion. Perhaps a little AGF would not go amiss - I do know the routine, and I am not prepared to restart a talk page discussion from six months ago when it seems clear to me that people got ground down there. More eyes will do no harm and, hey, you may be correct. WP:BRD is an essay, by the way. - Sitush (talk) 19:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rowan University

I'd have been amenable to the edits if User:Laburke had discussed them beforehand; it would appear he's engaging in a bit of sly attack because the campus he works for has been slated to merge with Rowan, and like many of his colleagues is insinuating that Rowan is somehow lesser because of its concentration on education and technical science as opposed to his field of natural science. I don't hold out a lot of hope for discussion but I would at least think that a return to the revision prior to his POV edits would be the usual angle if we're going to discuss it.  RasputinAXP  20:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Carolina"

It doesn't really get much more obvious than this. [1] Rreagan007 (talk) 20:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's an eminently reliable source for an encyclopedia. Surely no other sources of the same caliber contradict it. Oh, wait... ElKevbo (talk) 02:01, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay you have thrown around a lot of policy points, so let's go through them one at a time:

• 1) You have accused me of edit warring for making one revert. That is not edit warring per WP:EW which states that edit warring is "when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion." One revert is not "repeatedly" and we are currently discussing.
• 2) You suggested that I should revert myself per WP:BRD. That is not how it works. You were bold, I reverted back to the original text, and now we are discussing. The article stays the way it has existed under long term consensus while we discuss.
• 3) You seem to be implying that there can't be more than one school referred to as "Carolina". This is simply not correct, as both the University of South Carolina and the University of North Carolina are commonly referred to as simply "Carolina". This obvious fact is clearly evident simply by looking at their athletic uniforms. They both refer to themselves as "Carolina".
• 4) Every fact in an article does not need to have an inline citation. The fact that the University of North Carolina is sometimes referred to as Carolina is simply obvious, uncontroversial, and commonly known. It would be like requiring a citation to prove that the United States of America is sometimes referred to as the "United States" or "America". There is just no need for a cite in the article for this fact. But, if you want to look at sources on this for your own personal benefit, here are a few regarding the Carolina–Duke rivalry: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:23, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Someone else added the word, I reverted asking for a source, and you reverted without adding a source. That's an edit war. A minor one but still a problem since the first two edits were both done in good faith. Things only turned negative when you ignored my (very reasonable) request for evidence. Please pay more attention to the history of articles if you're going to edit them.

Thanks for the sources but is the word commonly used outside of the context of that rivalry and headlines (that strive for brevity, sometimes at the expense of clarity if you're not in the target audience)? ElKevbo (talk) 21:21, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's used in many other contexts. If you look at their official webpage www.unc.edu you will see it used several times on the main page (specifically "Giving to Carolina", "Carolina Global Photography Exhibition", and "Innovate@Carolina"). "Carolina" is also used throughout their official website such as here. And as far as paying attention to edit history, "Carolina" has been in the lead for years. It was recently removed by a couple of vandalism edits on February 8 and was mistakenly not entirely restored by the editor trying to correct the vandalism. So the editor on February 18 that restored it to the lead was merely correcting vandalism that occurred 10 days prior. As correcting vandalism does not count as edit warring, the initial "good faith" removal of "Carolina" was your edit and I reverted in accordance with WP:BRD. Therefore, there never was any edit warring. Please assume good faith, not edit warring. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:06, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're seriously telling me that that I need to assume good faith? Really?

I'm done with this conversation; it's run its course. ElKevbo (talk) 03:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Penn State Nittany Lions Rugby

What does one have to establish to be able to delete a picture of a player who played one season and prevent her from representing 2 collegiate programs that have won several national championships and graduated many national team players and professionals? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.31.89 (talk • contribs) 20:21, February 19, 2012‎

Your best bet is to discuss on the article's Talk page. But I don't know what the objection is since an image of a team is naturally going to have some of the players on that team in the image. But that doesn't mean that the image is of those particular players. ElKevbo (talk) 03:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The objection is against a person trying to self-aggrandize herself by posting her own picture on wikipedia in several different articles. It is just unseemly. But I suppose those sorts of things are not objectionable on wikipedia because it is not technically inaccurate? The only reason I am posting here, is I thought you were the one who reversed the removal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.69.3 (talk) 18:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... If someone is indeed posting photos of themselves in Wikipedia articles then it appears that she chose a particularly apt photo to put in an appropriate article. That seems to be reason enough to retain the photo, IMHO. ElKevbo (talk) 22:45, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John Calipari

Noticed the latest edit war on John Calipari over the inclusion of the list of controversies surrounding him. Obviously the new editor is wrong to remove these carte blanche, but it is time to trim this list down. Ideally, we'd integrate the content into the rest of the narrative, but not surprisingly, there isn't much "rest of the narrative", since most people are most interested in the controversial stuff. Wonder if we should start an RFP on what stays and what goes. Some things, like the Camby and Rose incidents, have to stay, since the vacated wins issue continues to dog Calipari. Other stuff, like the Laurinburg Institute and the Dozier test score, are only tangetially related and should probably go. Still others, like the Wagner, Evans, and Jones sections, are technically true, but wholly unnotable. (Otherwise, we'd have to pretend that Bob Knight never cursed at his players like Calipari did to Jones, and I'm sure as heck not ready to make that leap.) If we have an RFP for reference when people want to add or delete controversies, it could make the whole issue a little more palatable. Thoughts? Acdixon ^(talk · contribs) 14:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to trim or edit away! My objection is not that material was being edited or removed but that (a) it was done with no discussion or even an attempt at an explanation with an edit summary and (b) all of the material was removed. ElKevbo (talk) 15:44, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I get (and agree with) your reasons, but this isn't the first time this section has been subjected to an edit war. Attempts to trim the list invariably meet with re-addition of the removed topic and claims of "whitewashing" or "censorship". Thought an RFP might generate appropriate discussion and give us a place to point people on either side of the issue. Acdixon ^(talk · contribs) 16:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. I don't know if there has ever been much (or any) substantive discussion in Talk so it might be worth looking into first. ElKevbo (talk) 18:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Posted the discussion there now. We'll see what happens. Acdixon ^(talk · contribs) 19:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good! Hopefully our friend will participate in the discussion. ElKevbo (talk) 20:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Bucknell_University#Movement_of_ranking_out_of_lead

FYI: I moved some puffery and rankings out of the lead. Talk:Bucknell_University#Movement_of_ranking_out_of_lead--GrapedApe (talk) 04:56, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. I made a small tweak, too. ElKevbo (talk) 05:57, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know ...

ElKevbo, on the Harvard University page why was the edit of User:Megapixel reverted? Abhijay ^What did I do this time? 05:49, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually never mind, I understand the reason, but I've started a talk at the page article about your revert to the editor's edits, and his claims here: Talk:Harvard_University#The_Header_Dispute. You may come in whenever you feel like.

Talkback

Hello, ElKevbo. You have new messages at Talk:Harvard University.
Message added 09:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Abhijay ^What did I do this time? 09:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SN

Plus tacky taste in tacos. See you at Sunbelt? Bellagio99 (talk) 23:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Busy trying to finish up this dissertation and submit job applications. ElKevbo (talk) 23:33, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lambda Theta Alpha

Looks like you and I got to Lambda Theta Alpha at the same time. I did the notification on user page and the addition to the talk page. Where should this be registered to get the changes actually wiped? I'd sort of like to keep the info on the dates of chartering that the person changed as well, so I guess I'll make a copy of those and add them back in.Naraht (talk) 14:30, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We usually don't remove copyvios from article histories. They're fairly harmless there. ElKevbo (talk) 14:44, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've dealt with a few Copyvios before that have been. I added it at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2012_April_5 , so I figure whatever is supposed to happen to the page, will. *shrug*. I've tried to nicely put this information into User talk:Dondesta, we'll see whether she gets the clue. Note, I said she because her earlier edit was putting in a cite needed on the fact that another Latina sorority claimed to be the fastest growing, which to me almost *certainly* equals that the editor is a member of Lambda Theta Alpha. And there are some things that are lists like the list of Philanthropic Initiatives which may be salvagable. (A factual list isn't nearly the problem with copyvio that a history is)Naraht (talk) 15:18, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cool; no problem about the copyvio. If someone feels it's necessary to hide or oversight those edits in the history then that's fine by me. It seems excessive and unnecessary but it's certainly not harmful in any way.

Yeah, the fraternity and sorority articles can sometimes attract energetic new editors eager to add lots of information. Many such edits are copyvios or have POV and sourcing issues. At least they're taking an interest and trying, right? ElKevbo (talk) 20:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very unlikely a fraternity or sorority is going to sue. Yup. The challenge is to get them to understand what's allowed on Wikipedia. I've got it watchlisted and I left a note on her page.Naraht (talk) 00:44, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, ElKevbo. You have new messages at DBigXray's talk page.
Message added 18:21, 6 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

-- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 18:47, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, ElKevbo. You have new messages at DBigXray's talk page.
Message added 05:20, 7 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

ÐℬigXЯaɣ 05:20, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John Harvard, International Man of Mystery

I'm surprised you don't know that the John Harvard statue is not, in fact, a likeness of him. There are no contemporary portraits or even descriptions of what he looked like.

While I've got you, I hope someday you will join me in reversing the absurd practice of citing USN&WR, and similarly vapid rankings, in articles on higher education. It's laughable. EEng (talk) 04:21, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I am fairly knowledgeable about U.S. higher education I am not up on my Harvard Yard trivia. Like 90% of the edits that I revert, it would have been ok if the editor had included a source.

And you have my sympathy regarding rankings but I think that is a hopeless battle. They are so widely used by the public that it would actually be irresponsible to complete omit them. And speaking as a higher ed scholar, we've dug this hole ourselves by ignoring the public's need for useful, comparable information about one of the biggest investments of time and money many people will make in their lives. ElKevbo (talk) 05:17, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BGSU Faculty Unionization

Hi Elkevbo, I saw your comment on the BGSU talk page and I agree. I believe the recent edits by the anon is the same person that's been in a bit of a dead-end discussion on my talk page. The user doesn't seem to realize I kept a mention of the unionization in the first paragraph of the Faculty section. I think the mention is good enough but the user has been avoidant to even acknowledge that it's there and continues to add duplicate and more info at other locations in the article. I do not want to engage in an edit war but at some point the user's additions after having it explained multiple times becomes disruptive editing. Bhockey10 (talk) 19:50, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I emphatically agree that at a point persistent uncommunicative editing becomes disruptive. Any suggestions on what to do about this particular situation? Given our multiple independent efforts to reach out to this editor, I have no ethical qualms about being as stubborn as he or she but I don't know if that would be helpful or effective. ElKevbo (talk) 05:31, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I left a detailed comment on the users talk page explaining that dialogue via BGSU's talk page will be more effective than an edit war. Also added the welcome template encouraged that the user read over the Wikipedia tips and guidelines. Hopefully that helps but an admin might be needed if the user continues persistent disruptive editing and no effective communication. Bhockey10 (talk) 19:45, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A few hours ago, I requested that the page be semi-protected or the editor blocked. I think we've made a pretty good effort to reach out to this editor and my conscience is clean if he or she is blocked. ElKevbo (talk) 20:03, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That works too! Lately I've been expanding and cleaning up the article, had it peer reviewed and copyedited and placed it up for GA nomination, edit wars are not good for GA noms so a block on that user or semi-protection of the article should solve that issue. My guess is the admin may go for a block since the article hasn't had extensive vandalism from multiple users, really just this one recent user's disruptive edits. Thanks for all your help and hopefully this disruptive editing event is over. Bhockey10 (talk) 21:43, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]