User talk:ElKevbo/Archive 7

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.

External Links

Why did you remove my links, I've read the external link policy and don't meet and of the links to be avoided criteria, and do meet clause number 4 in the "What should be linked" section. Please expand on why you have removed my listing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Afro3429 (talk • contribs) 04:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Capella

I would have to agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mysteryquest (talk • contribs) 21:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Land Grant, Sea Grant, lol. I guess there is nothing governing superfluous headings.Mysteryquest 01:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's a little bit silly but it's a harmless compromise. --ElKevbo 01:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh they will not like having it in the History section. It's too special!!! I tried giving it is own heading so its not elevated to accreditation, or accreditation is diluted. In fact it was in the history section to start with before this tempest.Mysteryquest 01:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second Lady of the United States

I agree with the second part of your vote on the Second Lady of the United States AFD page, that the article should be renamed. I also think that the same questions raised regarding the article are also applicable to the related similarly-named category (Category:Second Ladies of the United States, which should probably be renamed although I am not sure if we should wait until the AFD vote on the article is closed before initiating any action with respect to the category. --TommyBoy 20:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would very strongly recommend doing nothing with the category until the AfD for the article is resolved. The AfD resolution should provide good guidance on what to do to the category (if indeed anything needs to be done at all). --ElKevbo 17:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harvard vandalism?

I see you recently reverted something on the Harvard article. You are the last person to edit the article. This made me think I should suggest you have a look rather than doing anything myself. There is something in the opening paragraph about Harvard being founded in the 15th century by pimps and being the oldest bordell (sic) in the Americas. There are footnotes involved and I don't want to make a mess of it. Maybe you could do whatever tidying is needed. Thanks.--Oxonian2006 17:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I already reverted that particular spate of vandalism. The current version looks good to me. If it doesn't look alright for you, try forcing a refresh, clearing your cache, etc. --ElKevbo 17:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i think you have made a mistake

hello i amtrying to add an edit to christanity to show the other side of the story plz allow me to edit the page i am not vandalizing the page i am trying to give information to the public —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whitecrip (talk • contribs) 05:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR (moved from elsewhere)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jort_%28apparel%29&action=history. -- Guroadrunner 10:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon? I count two reversions, not four. And this is not the place for this discussion. --ElKevbo 11:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Log

1. 02:18, 6 September 2007 ElKevbo (Talk | contribs) (1,375 bytes) (rm photo whose very credits note that it was taken from a humor magazine; it's a clear violation of NPOV (and possibly a violation of copyright)) (undo)
2. (cur) (last) 01:23, 6 September 2007 Cholmes75 (Talk | contribs) (1,419 bytes) (um, it was brought up on the talk page.) (undo)
3. (cur) (last) 00:02, 6 September 2007 ElKevbo (Talk | contribs) (1,375 bytes) (rm photo that appears to intend to ridicule the subject of the article; please discuss in Talk before restoring) (undo)
4. (cur) (last) 00:01, 6 September 2007 ElKevbo (Talk | contribs) (1,419 bytes) (Revert to revision 155897047 dated 2007-09-05 19:35:34 by Patrick925 using popups) (undo)
5. (cur) (last) 22:18, 5 September 2007 68.47.102.75 (Talk) (1,445 bytes) (undo)
6. (cur) (last) 19:35, 5 September 2007 Patrick925 (Talk | contribs) (1,419 bytes) (Undid revision 155757861 by ElKevbo (talk) "silly" isn't a valid reason to remove a valid image.) (undo)
7. (cur) (last) 02:25, 5 September 2007 ElKevbo (Talk | contribs) (1,375 bytes) (rm silly photo) (undo)
   

-- Guroadrunner 13:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

This is not the place for this discussion. Please move it to my Talk page or elsewhere if you feel it necessary to continue. --ElKevbo 13:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I moved all of this over here as per requested. You are correct that it did not belong on the other page, and I'd like to admit that I was the one who aggravated the issue by continuing the discussion on an inappropriate page.

However, I do believe that the above three edits bolded violate 3RR because it is within a 24h span. It seems like getting the image off that Jorts page became an edit war not necessarily of your doing. -- Guroadrunner 16:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunate (and likely unnecessary) edit war, yes. 3RR violation, no. One of those edits would not qualify as a revert in this context as it was vandalism unrelated to the edits being discussed. That leaves only two edits that would qualify as reversions and four are required for a 3RR violation. Yes, three reversions is not a right and two reverts probably constitutes edit warring. But it's not a 3RR violation.

But you're right in that it shouldn't have occurred in the first place and for that I apologize. --ElKevbo 17:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Match.com

95% of the Match.com "article" is based on what you termed unreliable references, so I suggest you revert to the original edits I made earlier. Simply moving them all to the TALK page for Match.com without making suggestions is silly and unprofessional. I'm a reasonable person who is fair, and I'm willing to present my facts in a fair way that Wiki editors respect and appreciate. However, I will NOT allow you to summarily dismiss my edits as you just did. You may reach me here: [e-mail]. My name is William. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wangtopgun (talk • contribs) 16:32, September 8, 2007

Moving your edits to the article's Talk page is not "summarily dismiss[ing]" them. I'm happy to work with you here or in the article's Talk page or even your own Talk page; I see no need to move this to e-mail. --ElKevbo 20:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still, you've said absolutely nothing useful that will contribute to what I am trying to do here: educate the public about the deceptive and illegal practices by a company that is ripping off customers worldwide. I suggest you offer some constructive criticism or I will simply revert to my original edits. [signed] Wangtopgun 080907 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wangtopgun (talk • contribs) 22:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please review our core policies of Neutral point of view, no original research, and verifiability. You should also review our guidelines for reliable sources. If you still have questions after reviewing those very important documents, please let me know. --ElKevbo 22:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bloomington North

I strongly disagree with revisions to the Bloomington High School North faculty page about information about notable staff to the school. As I mentioned to another contributor here, the activities with which some of the staff members are involved in contribute to the overall nature of the school - they are worth noting. Should we delete lists of academics at universities and the work they do? If people want to know MORE about the school, one thing they may want to know about is who some of the teachers are. This also applies to alumni who want to know about some of the current faculty members and what they are doing in their respective professional fields —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cougar616 (talk • contribs) 03:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied on the article's Talk page. In the future, please (a) create a new section at the bottom of any Talk page when addressing a new topic, (b) add new comments to the bottom of Talk pages, and (c) sign your comments. --ElKevbo 03:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Covenant College 3RR

So very sorry for the trouble I caused you. Would you either protect the page until Qmax takes action or provide some intervention in the process of this dispute...I feel like I'm being run around in circles, while the issues of COI, verifiability, notability and ownership are ignored. I have made multiple suggestions for edits and expressed willingness to work toward concensus, even after previous discussion (that I had no part in) indicated removing the section altogether...all those discussions and suggestions and edits were ignored until I began removing the edits. I have always, always, always tried to respect "remove, revert and discuss", but I am tired of feeling bullied, and I feel other editors do not feel free to edit the article. Thanks. Flowanda | Talk 04:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that you're considering weighing in on the discussion (again). From what I can tell, Flowanda wants one course of action, instead of consensus. He didn't agree with the 3rd Party Assessment, and I'd like to try some of the other conflict resolution routes, if he/she will agree. Thoughts? Qmax 13:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty busy but I will try to weigh in tonight. --ElKevbo 17:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, how is this as a compromise:

Accreditation non-compliance warnings and restoration
In December 2005, SACS reviewed the college and found that the college had "significant non-compliance with the core requirements."[1]

As a result, its accreditation was given the status of warning pending a follow-up review in December 2006. Following a statement that "Covenant College remains fully accredited, with full accreditation status for the entire college program",[2], the college sent its final report to SACS.[3] The warning for accreditation was subsequently removed and the college's accreditation completely reaffirmed after its ten-year examination by SACS in 2006. [4]

1. "SACS Public Disclosure" (PDF). Southern Association of Colleges and Schools. 2006. Retrieved 2007-01-27.
2. "Covenant College SACS Warning". Irresponsible Journalism. 2006. Retrieved 2007-01-27.
3. "Covenant College SACS Warning". Irresponsible Journalism. 2006. Retrieved 2007-01-27.
4. "Accrediting Up and Downs". Inside Higher Ed. 2006. Retrieved 2007-08-13.

The references need to be cleaned up (properly formatted, preferably using cite templates) but that's a minor issue. --ElKevbo 00:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That looks fine to me. I appreciate you taking the time to weigh in. Qmax 02:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, doesn't work for me at all...please see CC talk page. None of the issues I bring up are addressed. Thanks again for your help... Flowanda | Talk 04:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the discussion on the talk page, I'm no longer opposing the edits above...my only suggestion is that with the shortened copy, one of the two citations could be removed since they go to the same blog post. Thanks again for your help...and I appreciate your frank observations as well...I needed them. Have a great weekend! Flowanda | Talk 02:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reread through the talk page today and wanted to be clear I wasn't including you in this statement. -"I guess I am the only one not on the "official" Covenant email list." Flowanda | Talk 18:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of YouTube celebrities at AfD

As the creator of this article, you should have been notified. Ichormosquito 05:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I don't feel very strongly about whether the article should stay or go but I think that I can help provide some useful background for others weighing that decision. --ElKevbo 14:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indef

For an attack like that, an indefblock is certainly warranted. If he comes back with an unblock promising no further repeats of that behaviour then I wouldn't object to a short(ish)block. After all, indef doesn't mean infinite. ELIMINATORJR 22:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Student Affairs

Hi! I noticed you have contributed greatly to some education-related articles and I was wondering if you'd like to join a WikiProject for Student Affairs that I'm trying to start. I tried this a few months ago and contacted you about it but there was no interest, so now I'm trying to contact people directly that may have an interest. Let me know if you'd want to join such a WP so I can submit a request. Thanks! --Noetic Sage 23:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm skeptical that there will be enough sustained interest for such a project. It might be better to test the waters a bit to see if you can gather enough folks to work on a key article or two and get them to GA or even FA status. The last time I looked at some SA-related articles they were in very poor shape. (I've kind of been hoping that some faculty who teach technology-related SA courses would assign his or her students to improve some articles as an exercise - good for them and good for us. I need to poke a few faculty members I know in these areas...)

In any case, let me know what you decide to do and I'll back you up. Even if a WP isn't sustainable it can't hurt to try! --ElKevbo 23:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Student Affairs task force has been created. Please join so we can start improving Student Affairs articles! -- Noetic Sage 22:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Florida State University Yearbook Archive

You removed a link I added to the FSU page with a comment that login is required. In fact, you can search the yearbooks for free as well as browse thumbnail images. I believe this merits inclusion on the page. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.199.40 (talk) 03:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But you can't view the content without a login. We've gone through this before. Peddle your spam elsewhere. --ElKevbo 11:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please point out where in the Wikipedia policy that links to content without a login is unauthorized? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.199.40 (talk) 15:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read what I wrote on your Talk page nearly three weeks ago the last time you tried to spam your website in Wikipedia articles. You're more than welcome to bring up this topic in the appropriate Talk pages; since the policy is in the MOS, that talk page would probably be the most appropriate. --ElKevbo 17:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I already brought this up on the talk pages of several of the sites I modified. I previous got approval so I don't believe I should have to go through this again. In my opinion, the links are not spam. If I have already gotten approval on the Talk page of Cal Berkeley then why must I get your individual approval separately? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.199.40 (talk) 23:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall any of your requests ever resulting in a consensus to override the MOS. Please point me to any such discussion. --ElKevbo 00:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:University_of_California%2C_Berkeley#Blue_.26_Gold_Yearbook —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.199.40 (talk) 23:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to be overwhelmed by the consensus displayed by those two editors. That several other editors have also consistently objected to and removed your links seems a more substantive body of evidence. Again, you're always free to try to make your case in the appropriate article's Talk pages. --ElKevbo 01:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. I'll post to the talk pages of all the other schools. However, Cal has already been approved so please do not remove the link.

I have read the MOS as well as the Submanual on Links / External Links. Please point me to the discussion where the links I'm adding is in conflict with the MOS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.199.40 (talk) 17:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I already did so on your own Talk page - nearly a month ago. --ElKevbo 22:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I searched the MOS for your quote "site[s] that requires registration or a subscription should not be linked unless the web site itself is the topic of the article." and could not find it anywhere. Please point me to where this quote is - I cannot find it. Also, I see many other websites that are linked that use registration - for example, http://www.cstv.com (College Sports TV) These did not require separate approval. In fact, I my previous approval on the Cal page is more than any of the CSTV links...—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.199.40 (talk) 02:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, sign your comments. You've been here long enough to know better. Second, the specific portion of the MOS that deals with external links is here. Third, that there are other external links that also violate this guideline doesn't mean that more can or should be added. In fact, you're more than welcome to remove other links that you notice are also problematic. --ElKevbo 03:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies

I thought somebody was removing your notice of allegations, so I reverted it. My apologies. --Orange Mike 22:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. No big deal! --ElKevbo 22:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it were a less useful editor, it would be a less big deal. I still can't believe I did that! --Orange Mike 00:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Newington College

Any thoughts on the current revisions and reverts at Newington and on the alumni list. Mitchplusone 13:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Without conducting a thorough analysis, my thoughts are that a group of sockpuppets are continually warring with an obstinate, overzealous, and stubborn editor. Both sides are largely in the wrong. --ElKevbo 14:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The College of William & Mary

Hi, ElKevbo, I just wanted to say that I'm glad I'm not the only one who is concerned about those two images! I've removed them twice, but the original uploader has reverted me each time. I've posted twice to their talk page, but nothing seems to get through to them. I just wanted to give you a heads-up in case you are also reverted. Take care, María (críticame) 19:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can see on his or her Talk page that I've also left comments during a previous dispute; he or she ignored my questions completely. He or she seems to be very uncommunicative. :( --ElKevbo 19:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the criteria and from my understanding this actually falls under "Fair Use"--there is no other image freely available online that shows the W&M campus from up top. I have scoured the web and there is none. Moreover, the copyright holder information IS in the image...click on it and you will see who owns it. She and I had e-mailed directly regarding her giving permission. I have placed the watermark there as per Fair Use requirements (I do not see why the watermark is any way a problem, however). Thank you for your time and patience (as I am new to this). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Higherededitor2 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We've been pretty explicit about why the watermark is not permitted. Nor do the fair use guidelines require or even permit watermarks. And simply being the only photo that you can find doesn't make something qualify as fair use. Either the photo must qualify as fair use (which it probably doesn't as it's simply not necessary for the article) or the copyright holder must release the photo under the GFL or a similar Free license. --ElKevbo 21:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Krysiak

The deletion of the information about Kryisak's false claim of being a protected federal employee under US Code Title 28 Section 1441 is unjust, the information can be easily verified, it is public record and I have the court papers here. The relationship with the Department of Veterans Affairs and this case is easy to see, it's in the court papers.

Krysiak is/was an alumni of UC Berkeley, Alan Bersin was the federal prosecutor in the court litigation (Bersin is a Rhodes Scholar and after his departure from federal employment he was employed in the San Diego school system). This occurrence is relevant not only to UC Berkeley lore, but to both California and American education history. It is also topical to the American River College Black Chalks American College Testing Service (ACT) test deletion scandal.

What's unreferenced here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.212.147.169 (talk) 14:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you have court papers, use them as references. But simply adding the information without any references whatsoever is not acceptable. --ElKevbo 14:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Apologies if my suggestion resulted in unneeded, further campaigning at AN/I. Into The Fray ^T/C 14:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. No harm done! --ElKevbo 14:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citing Sources

The book that is cited in the passages that you deleted will be published in October, so there is in my opinion no harm if information from it appears already now. As you might know, in scientific publishing it is common that books that are published at the end of a year already are dated with the next calender year! So I suggest to undo the deletions...—Preceding unsigned comment added by Crscrs (talk • contribs) 14:10, September 29, 2007

"Will be published" seems to be the key phrase in your assertion. If it hasn't been published it can't be cited as a reliable source.

I also hope that you are going to address your connection with this book; it seems possible that you may have a conflict of interest as (a) having access to and (b) adding an unpublished book as a reference seems to indicate that you have a connection with it.

Finally, please sign your comments on talk pages and place new comments at the bottom. --ElKevbo 19:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you agree that the comments should be added once the book is available (which will be in a very short time)? --CrsCrsCrs —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crscrs (talk • contribs) 10:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to tell us whether or not you have a conflict of interest or are acting to promote the book rather than improve this encyclopedia? --ElKevbo 13:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion it is not a conflict of interest because citing yourself is not automatically a COI: "Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest. Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is notable and conforms to the content policies. Excessive self-citation is strongly discouraged". Maybe it is better to discuss this issue on the content level: I thought that it was important to say something on how MySpace, YouTube etc. operate economically, how their business models work and differ from other Internet business models. This issue is not-yet covered in the articles. I think this issue is interersting and worth going into in the Wikipedia entries on the specific topics. Besides my own work there isn't really that much work that has been done on that issue. However, I agree with you that my book shouldn't be the only one cited. Hence my suggestion would be to add additional sources. E.g. the book by Tapscott "Wikinomics" presents a view that is very different. Discussing both views in this context would really give a balanced, neutral point of view. I'd be willing to contribute to the production of such a passage, are you interested too? Or do you have another suggestion how to best deal with the issue of business models and MySpace, YouTube, etc. I think currently this issue is not really covered in the entries. Also one could add a reference to Dallas Smythe's work in this context because there are such obvious parallels. So my interest is not to promote my own work, but to expand the articles, but I do think that I do have an important expertise in this area and most importantly, I think that scientific books, articles, etc. should be cited in Wikipedia articles. What do you (constructively) think? --CrsCrsCrs

I think you're on the right track. Let's try this approach: Let me know when the book is available and I'll make the edits you have suggested to add it as a reference. That will help you avoid even the appearance of impropriety by adding your own book while also making the sure the information is added and properly cited. In the meantime, adding other sources and info would be *more* than welcome! Many of the articles you are attempting to edit are, as I'm sure you have noticed, quite weak and we welcome help in improving them.

I'd also like to know when the book is available as it's close to my own research interests and may prove to be a valuable resource for my own work. Got any links to good reviews yet? --ElKevbo 17:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear ElKevbo, I have now as suggested last time updated the sections of some entries concerning economic aspects. This concerns the articles on MySpace, YouTube, and Web 2.0. I have added sections on "The Economy of MySpace", "The Economy of YouTube", and "The Economy of Web 2.0". As far as I can see, thus far one of the only and the most important book that covers this issue is Tapscott's and Williams' "Wikinomics". I have referred to this book. Their argument is that companies should make profit from Web 2.0, social networking, peering, open content, etc. In my opinion there are two major approaches in this field: One that stresses new ways of making profit (as the Wikinomics book), and another one that argues that such new business models are new forms of exploitation. I think that both approaches should be adequately represented on Wikipedia, so that users can form opinions. Thus far in the entries, the first approach is largely present, the second hardly. I would be happy if you could based on our preceding discussions help in expanding and improving this section. Best, C. --CrsCrsCrs —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crscrs (talk • contribs) 14:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability template

Thanks for the note, my apologies I had not seen the error in date. As for the reason - I am heavily involved in education in my local area and have been trying to improve the local information on education and schools. I have been informed quite bluntly by several contributors that there is no place in Wikipedia for articles on primary (junior) schools. Indeed I have now moved the information on one school that I started to the article on the village in which it is located. Therefore as I am told that it is Wikipedia policy not to have these articles I thought that I was doing the right thing by flagging up some very un notable one line entires for primary schools in the UK. It would seem that if you are not 'in the know' then Wikipedia is a very unfriendly place in which to try and operate!Paste 08:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JROTC

Your comments of calling added information (in this case the Army JROTC creed) "propaganda" and "silly" are not very objective points of view. I would suggest that these characterizations are subjective and clearly demonstrate a bias. I think that the inclusion of the creed adds information to the article that can be quoted by a student or other academic who is doing research on this or related topics. For instance, if a person is doing a school paper (either for or against) JROTC they can quote whatever portion of the creed (in part of in whole) that they deem appropriate for their paper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sf46 (talk • contribs) 19:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss with others in the article's Talk page. I disagree with your assertions and find no value in adding that statement to the article. --ElKevbo 23:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good RC Patrol

Nice burst of merciless editing there. (207.195.192.34 13:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

GWU

Good point! I've responded at the GW talk page. Dylan 04:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, no problem! I think you're attributing those positive qualities pretty generously to me, though :). Since I wrote it in such a low-key setting, admitting the mistake doesn't really take too much guts, IMHO. At any rate, thanks for your kind words! Dylan 04:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warnings

Thank you, but I deliberately issued the 3rd warning (out of 4) that is required per Wikipedia:Vandalism. If they had already been issued the requisite 4 warnings, then I certainly would have reported them. Cardsplayer4life 19:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4 warnings are not required; please exercise better judgement when dealing with persistent and blatant vandals. --ElKevbo 20:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scrolling bar

Thanks for catching my mistake and removing those from Dartmouth College, List of Dartmouth College alumni, and List of Dartmouth College faculty. Man! It's a shame, though. I really thought I had stumbled across a great solution to the Alumni page's looooong set of 338 references.

Oh, well. Thanks! Dylan 13:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! I understand the attraction of this "solution" and I hope that future browsers will mitigate many of its disadvantages. But it's just not ready for prime time yet. :( --ElKevbo 15:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chiodos

[1]

You appear to have accidentally reverted an anti-vandalism revert with PopUps. I assume it was because User:Philipbembridge got to it before you did. Just thought you should know.

Cheers, and happy wiki'ing! - Revolving Bugbear (formerly Che Nuevara) 19:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! PhilB ~ ^T/_C 19:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Sorry about that! Good catch and thanks for the heads up. --ElKevbo 19:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ElKevbo is a Joy to Work with

Hi ElKevbo, I enjoy working with you. You're an excellent Wikipedian and a pleasure to work with. Thank you, TallMagic 19:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, shucks. You're just saying that so I won't hurt those children tied up in my basement, right? :) --ElKevbo 19:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If they're Wikipedians then you need to be nice otherwise, I don't care. :) TallMagic 20:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: Hah

Thanks for the barnstar. I'm glad you enjoyed. :) Esrever 02:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re scrolling refs

7 World Trade Center was the other one I was thinking of. I would fix it but it appears that you already have. Thanks for the info and nice work. KnightLago 01:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! I'm trying to go through all of the FAs right now. --ElKevbo 01:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice. I removed the scrollbars from the remaining articles that I added them to. BlueAg09 (Talk) 23:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! --ElKevbo 23:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sandusky, OH

Thanks for reverting that. The anon editor (who happens to use dynamic IPs) has been harassing me since April or May, adding nonsense like that to various articles. Thanks again. Regards, Parsecboy 03:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Workplace bullying

I am not clear on why you choose to delete one entry and allow others? I have seen untrue statements about the Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act providing protection to psychological harassment in the workplace. I have fix them as I am working on bring this into Ontario with MPP's. However, it is ok for certain people to monopolize the front page with links to their website but others doing work in this area of stopping bullying can't? Please explain - I reference all my findings and have also being working hard on research in this area. [e-mail] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Parriswolfe (talk • contribs) 19:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:COI and WP:RS. It's frowned upon for us to directly reference our own research as that is a conflict of interest. We also must ensure that anything we reference is reliable and that typically means that it has been published by a reliable source (i.e. not just any random webpage, no matter how nice it is or accurate the information).

Please understand that this is not at all personal. I do not and will not reference my own research here, too. --ElKevbo (talk) 19:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Link Spam

Greetings. I'm sorry to learn that you feel these links are spam. Not all external links are inappropriate. I consider each carefully & only add them if they clearly (in my opinion) add value to the article. For example, to the article on Hochelaga village, I added a link to a page with photos of the stone marking the location of this village. mrmdog 20 Nov 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrmdog (talk • contribs) 21:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ontario Health and Safety Act - This does NOT cover bullying or psychological harassment

I telephoned the OHS act and asked them - this text does not include psychological harassment. As I stated to you, I am working with the person currently - as of today not October - which is past - to get the legislation revisited. What you are think of was voted out. It did not pass.

Here is there number - Occupational Health and Safety – 416-314-5421 call them yourself and validate the information with the government - not a text book which is not current.

Ontario does not have legislation on this type of harassment. We are currently working on getting things re-written and put into the legislation drafting committee. Here call the MPP your self - MPP Andrea Horwath, Constituency Office Tel: [phone] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.193.242 (talk) 01:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're talking about and I think you might have me confused with someone else. I saw that you removed that paragraph about the Ontario Health and Safety Act and I don't object to that edit. The only thing that I have removed from the bullying article (that is what you're talking about, right?) is some blatant self-promotion by an editor. --ElKevbo (talk) 01:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok - 1. I tried to post something from my research on the financial and human resource costs of allowing a bully to remain in the work place, as Namie's people have posted his stuff. What I put was not going on and on, just two - three sentences. Why can Namie refer his services through his links - but I can I not ref my white paper? Please let me know how this link of Namie's #12 is related to research and not self promotion: http://www.bullyinginstitute.org/bbstudies/WBIbrochure.pdf This brochure on "Bully Week" is just a cloak for promoting his services! He even promotes his DVD! If editors on this site are going to remove links to useful research and valuable insights then please remove these types of self-promotion links. Especially when done by people who can afford to pay for ad space! It is nice he did research but it does not give him the right to use the site for promotion. user: Tamara Parris

2. Ontario Safe and Health Act issue - if you are not putting it back on - then who is and why? If it is not you - then how do we find the person who is, and stop them putting up information that will mislead people to think that we have legislation on this when we don't. Quebec and Sask do - not Ontario. We are trying to get public support on this issue and the sad fact is even some of the MPP offices tell people that we have legislation against bullying - because it just seems logical. Well unfortunately - logic has nothing to do with current legislation.talk)

Who or what is "Namie"? And to what article are you referring? --ElKevbo (talk) 03:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

George Orwel

Do you want to weigh in on the edits at George Orwel? Flowanda | Talk 17:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my. That appears to be a sticky one. The direct involvement of a Wikipedia editor can allow that editor's Wikipedia User page(s) to cross from original research to a legitimate primary or secondary source.

I'll watchlist it and keep an eye on it. I'll weigh in if appropriate and desirable. --ElKevbo (talk) 18:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for User Page Edit

Thanks for fixing my user page edit. Am a n00b, was wondering if the npov tag was gonna cuz problems. Thought I was being funny :) Apartcents (talk) 08:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I caught the humor but wanted to make sure your User page wasn't listed as an unreferenced article. You should be okay with just the template's graphics and text. --ElKevbo (talk) 20:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What current bill pending in the House

There is a bill pending in the house that has something to do with accreditation? Do tell!Mysteryquest (talk) 20:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Accreditation isn't really my thing (I'm a student development and technology researcher) but there was some dust-up related to accreditation in some last-minute changes to the House Democrat's Higher Ed reauthorization act. Again, I haven't followed it closely at all as I'm really only focused on the P2P issues in this particular bill; I just remember "accreditation" being one of the issues. --ElKevbo (talk) 20:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]