User talk:ElKevbo/Archive 11

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.

Charles Whitman

I apologize for what you found to be "vandalizing" of the Whitman article. I do however find it difficult to decifer what is a Wikipedia article an a ordinary encyclopedia article. But thats a discussion that will never be resolved I guess... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Torsrthidesen (talk • contribs) 02:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

USNA sports

I'm wondering why you deleted the following Ext Link: "Naval Academy Varsity Athletics official website". Since it is the official website for USNA's varsity athletics, it seems appropriate for the page. Thank you for your time in answering my question. Eagle4000 (talk) 22:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. Feel free to readd it. But you'll probably want to figure out a better way to label it since the article will then have two "official" Athletics links and that seems confusing (it was to me!). --ElKevbo (talk) 03:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

GA reassessment of University of California, Santa Cruz

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:University of California, Santa Cruz/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:49, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

GA reassessment of United States Air Force Academy

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as you have made a number of contributions to the article. Unfortunately the poor state of referencing of the article meant that I immediately de-listed it as it fails to meet the GA criteria at present. When these concerns, which you can see at Talk:United States Air Force Academy/GA1, have been addressed you may renominate the article at WP:GAN. If you disagree with this re-assessemnt please take it ito WP:GAR for community re-assessment. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

FSU Disambiguation Discussion

Would you mind keeping an eye on this discussion and, if my suggestion is agreed, have Wikipedia redirect to Florida State University upon a search of the term "fsu" and then disambiguate "fsu" from there? I don't know how to make the redirect/disambig mechanics work and I am reluctant to screw up the existing pages. Thanks in advance for any help! --Sirberus (talk) 17:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure thing! Poke me again in a week or so if (a) the discussion has been amicably resolved and (b) I haven't done anything to help. --ElKevbo (talk) 17:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey! Would you mind taking another look at this issue? Thanks! --Sirberus (talk) 20:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Condoleezza Rice

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as you have made a number of contributions to the article. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Condoleezza Rice/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hi ElKevbo,

Thanks for the comments/corrections! I'm new to wikipedia and still learning the ropes. Just trying to add some info. All the best, James. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poughkeepsieman (talk • contribs) 00:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Personal Attack

I'm not really offended but I'd prefer it if you didn't call me an asshole. We're both here trying to improve Wikipedia. You've done a lot for the project and I appreciate that. Let's try to keep things civil please. OlYeller^Talktome 18:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

It would help if you wouldn't edit war to try to speedily delete an article that clearly asserted its notability. If you don't know about a topic then it might be best to not edit in that area or - at the very least - defer to experts who do know about that topic. --ElKevbo (talk) 18:55, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

You know nothing of my knowledge. Thanks for slowing down and taking some time to work on the article. Your work is appreciated. OlYeller^Talktome 18:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I made you so angry. Anything I can do to help calm you down? I'm sure you don't care for my personal opinion but you might want to take a break if something so small can irritate to such a degree. OlYeller^Talktome 19:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Apology accepted and reciprocated. I was irritated, not angry. Now go away for a little while and I shall do the same. :) --ElKevbo (talk) 19:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

St. John's

i undid new changes. this is consistant since 17:02, 13 March 2010 ElKevbo. enigma should discuss this on talk page according to WP:BB. If you look at the diff [1] you will see that "St. Johns is a Catholic, Vincentian and Metropolitan University. " is st john's current motto. The rest are tuition increase statements based from St. John's own website and the New York Times. Where is the POV or non neutral statements? 24.239.153.58 (talk) 21:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Oberline Conservatory

I have made edits to the Oberlin Conservatory of Music page, which I believe improve it by adding testimonial from students( which I have firsthand). These edits elevate the page from the status of propaganda to what wikipedia is meant to be, a collaborative effort. Yes/No?

Anupwardtrend (talk) 22:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)anupwardtrend

I'm afraid that "firsthand testimonials" do not belong in Wikipedia. We only rely on reliable sources that publish verifiable information. Sorry! --ElKevbo (talk) 02:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Bad Revert

This edit was not productive because you inserted extra space in the top of the article (below the hatnote but above lede).174.3.123.220 (talk) 20:11, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I also removed a bad parameter from the infobox. Sorry but I'm not going to lose sleep over this one. :) --ElKevbo (talk) 22:13, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

RN.ORG

Greetings. You didn't approve RN.ORG since we didn't have any notible references but we have added our approvals from the various state boards of nursing and updated the information. As always, if you have any issues we are always open. Thanks so much - Larry —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.157.60.26 (talk • contribs) 12:25, April 17, 2010

Thank you!

Thanks for fixing my stuff-up at Talk:Campus Watch. I'm not sure how I did that ... I'm very glad someone caught it. Cheers, CWC 21:10, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome! --ElKevbo (talk) 21:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, ElKevbo. You have new messages at Bluerasberry's talk page.
Message added 12:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cheers! Blue Rasberry 12:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

And again! Blue Rasberry 12:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

		The Userpage Shield
		We met when I was reinserting something you removed. You brought your response to my talk page when I was getting visits from my first Wikipedia stalker. You recognized his attack as such and have since been reverting his vandalism! How serendipitous that my path crossed yours, because I appreciate the backup! Blue Rasberry 03:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey. I just went to the admin noticeboard to report my persistent page vandalism and saw that you just did. Thanks. I know it is probably just a kid doing this to me, but it still is kind of weird especially when I do not know the user or the issue. Blue Rasberry 16:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

OrphanReferenceFixer: Help on reversion

Hi there! I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. Recently, you reverted my fix to Barnard College.

If you did this because the references should be removed from the article, you have misunderstood the situation. Most likely, the article originally contained both <ref name="foo">...</ref> and one or more <ref name="foo"/> referring to it. Someone then removed the <ref name="foo">...</ref> but left the <ref name="foo"/>, which results in a in the article. I replaced one of the remaining <ref name="foo"/> with a copy of the <ref name="foo">...</ref>; I did not re-insert the reference to where it was deleted, I just replaced one of the remaining instances. What you need to do to fix it is to make sure you remove all instances of the named reference so as to not leave any .

If you reverted because I made an actual mistake, please be sure to also correct any reference errors in the page so I won't come back and make the same mistake again. Also, please post an error report at User talk:AnomieBOT so my operator can fix me! If the error is so urgent that I need to be stopped, also post a message at User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/OrphanReferenceFixer. Thanks! AnomieBOT⚡ 00:10, 2 May 2010 (UTC) If you do not wish to receive this message in the future, add {{bots|optout=AnomieBOT-OrphanReferenceFixer}} to your talk page.

WiZiQ Article for Deletion

I'll assume good faith. With the additional sources on WiZiQ would you still vote for delete? I added a source from Mashable which is a pretty major source on the web, and another source Silicon India which isn't as major but I think it would still be considered a reliable source WP:RS.

This is in addition to another source (basically, somebody who works for Forbes). So that makes a total of three reliable sources.

I frankly don't understand why WiZiQ needs to be deleted, but Edufire and Myngle don't.

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/WiZiQ

Jjjjjjjjjj (talk) 19:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Well done. I am a bit skeptical of the references but I am willing to AGF and move on.

On the topic of the other articles: Maybe they *do* need to be deleted. I simply haven't looked at them. And I don't plan to unless my attention is specifically drawn to them in some other manner. --ElKevbo (talk) 19:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to consider WiZiQ. Also, thanks for mentioning that there shouldn't be a notability section. I made some revisions to the article and think this improves it. Jjjjjjjjjj (talk) 18:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy note

You are receiving this note because of your participation in WT:Revision deletion#Community consultation, which is referred to in Wikipedia:VPR#Proposal to turn on revision deletion immediately (despite some lingering concerns). –xeno^talk 14:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Boston University

Did you switch the logo & wordmark back? We're trying to reverse the order so that the new Facebook Community page doesn't pull the seal for the image (it currently pulls the first image on Wikipedia pages, and the seal is not desirable for this image placement. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks! Jmackintosh (talk) 18:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I did. I switched it so it's consistent with the other Wikipedia articles.

Hmmm... This sounds like it is a much bigger issue than just this one article. Can you please post something at WT:UNI so we can have a larger discussion? (Once you have something there, I can drop a note on other relevant pages pointing to your note so we can centralize discussion in one place.) Your concern is valid and understandable and we should consider changing all of our articles so they're still consistent. I've never been a big fan of promoting the seal ahead of the work mark as it's just not as recognizable to the general public anyway so this gives us a good reason to have a discussion about this issue. ElKevbo (talk) 18:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks; I've added my concern to the WT:UNI page. Jmackintosh (talk) 18:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Bio

It was great to read about the man behind the ElKevbo enforcement machine. My advisor, Darren Gergle, knows Susan Herring well and our group does a fair amount of content analysis of Wikipedia content (In my case, airplane crashes), so I'd love to read your paper. Madcoverboy (talk) 19:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Skype

You might note that at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Massapequa High School, also introduced some extraneous text around some numerical characters. This may be due to a combination of your browser and Skype trying to identify and highlight telephone numbers. Thank you.--Rumping (talk) 11:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Schools

Do you hate all universities, or just the ones you didn't go to... or espically the one you went to? Lurkmolsner (talk) 21:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

All. I'm nonpartisan. :)

lol Lurkmolsner (talk) 21:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

ELs

First, I hope you realize UNIGUIDE is not actually a guideline, thus it has little weight. Now, WP:EL is a guideline, so we should follow it, and you edits have note. If you saw my link in the edit summary at Willamette University, hopefully you took the time to read that section, which covers this point specifically, and not tangentially like other portions of EL (such as your quote): If several external links are listed and the subject of the article is a living person, organization, web service, or otherwise has an official website, it is normal practice to place the link to that site at the top of the list (if it is not already in an appropriate infobox). Thus, I have been "mak[ing] edits that contravene the established guidelines", however, you have not been. Oh, and, yes, it is usually where the official is listed, even though it is in the infobox, but only because people like yourself are not aware of the actual policy. Not to mention WP:OTHERSTUFF. Aboutmovies (talk) 05:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, off to the Talk page of WP:EL to address this.

But your snide tone is completely unnecessary and unwelcome. :( ElKevbo (talk) 05:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Had you simply said you would like to discuss the edit and get my reasoning behind it, the result would have been different. But, instead, you ended with "before you continue to make edits that contravene the established guidelines?" Needless to say, I get a little POd when someone tells me that, when in fact they are in the wrong per "established guidelines". :( Aboutmovies (talk) 06:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Brigham Young University

I am simply stating that BYU has been referred to as the Harvard of the West. It is obvious that this is a true, indisputable fact (that it has been referred as such, not that it actually is the Harvard of the West)and I don't understand why you continue to revert it. This is not boosterism (not a word) and has been moved out of the heading. Thank you and have a nice day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.237.82.66 (talk) 19:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Please discuss this on the Talk page of the article so that all interested editors can participate. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 19:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Teh Harvard of Utah! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lurkmolsner (talk • contribs) 14:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

SU & UMC

Please see the latest comments in the discussion here. With regards, Anupam^Talk 21:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Ohio Wesleyan University edits

Sorry for the mix-up. I used rollback on the new user's edits, then later realized they were not vandalism, so I should have used undo. I hit rollback on my self by mistake, and when I went to fix it had an edit conflict with your fix. Just one of those days. Sorry, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem! :) ElKevbo (talk) 17:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Grand Valley State University logo/seal

Greetings. The issue I have with the GVSU seal is that it isn't what's present on GVSU brochures and the website. The logo is, and is the more recognizable identifier. The change to the seal should have been discussed first anyhow. I went ahead and reverted back to the logo. Let me know your thoughts. Regards, P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 22:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

You've reverted two separate editors and you shouldn't have done that. But I've dropped a line at WT:UNI to ask a few other editors to chime in on this issue. Project-wide consensus is firmly against you (I know; I agree with you and unsuccessfully campaigned to have this changed recently). ElKevbo (talk) 00:42, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

An edit war isn't my intention (and if someone changes it back to the seal I won't revert them). It's just that the IP editor didn't provide an edit summary didn't explain why it was changed, and I wasn't aware of the consensus that a seal is preferred over the logo. I welcome comments from others and if that consensus is re-affirmed, then I will certainly abide by it. Thanks for your input. Regards, P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 02:17, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

FSU - UF Rivalry Issue Heating Up - The Age Dispute

Hey Dude - Do you think you'd have time to keep an eye on this fresh iteration of the old rivalry? It's about the age dispute this time. Thanks for any help! --Sirberus (talk) 21:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I think you're coming off a bit hostile and confrontational. I don't really see what's wrong with the edits being made and I don't perceive any cheerleading for particular institutions occurring. Founding dates are slippery and political and subject to incredible amounts of interpretation so I wouldn't get too worked up about things. ElKevbo (talk) 23:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Just saw your remarks - thanks for taking the time to respond. Some family members are also working on terminal graduate degrees so I know you don't have much time to spare. In the context and time I saw the various edits and across the multiple pages where they were made, I felt justified in confronting the other editor after some time had passed. The initial edits were very curious and attracted my attention at the outset, while subsequent edits seemed quite one-sided and, frankly, sloppy. There was no explanation of the strange first edit until much later - unfortunately. However, since those posts we have resolved the matter and I have found the other editor to be an excellent writer and he is doing a nice job with the articles. We are working well now and the articles will be better as a result. It seems we have success when I find the references and he writes them up. Life on Wikipedia goes on... :) --Sirberus (talk) 21:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Sirberus - I really appreciate your followup! And I'm glad that things are working out now! ElKevbo (talk) 21:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry

I didn't read your edit summary properly and I misjudged it as random content removal. I had realised and I was in the process of reverting my own edit however you beat me to it. Sorry for any inconveniences. Regards IJA (talk) 16:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem! :) ElKevbo (talk) 16:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Notability

Yes, indeed, WP:Notability applies to articles. But the alumni list at M.I.T. (like most alumni lists) only includes people notable enough to have their own articles. The fellow who was being added did not have his own article, though there are many other classes of alumni mentioned in the article (e.g. Nobel Prize winners) who aren't even mentioned by name. --Macrakis (talk) 03:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Moving the SHAEF report

Hi

Thanks for that - I wasn't sure if the notice board was just for reports/mediation of primary source problems or for also asking questions about defining before inclusion lol

Chaosdruid (talk) 22:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome! ElKevbo (talk) 02:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Online Law Student

Poor "online law student" seems upset that s/he can't fully edit the article they are interested in. Apparently, OLS is a student at California SOL and wants to convince themself that it has "far superior performance" in getting its students to pass the Baby Bar. I am quite familiar with the subject, hence I follow what happens in the area. My editing on the topic came about because there was a lot of promotional information on the page, which I deleted or toned down. OLS fails to see the point of my criticism -- that % pass rates are not informative. And OLS seems rather thin-skinned when it comes to criticism. OLS will have a LOT to LEARN when it comes to the practice of law! In any event, ElKelbo, I thank you for your discussion input. Best regards. --S. Rich 17:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

You may be right but let's please be nice to him or her, ok? I'll keep an eye on the discussion and weigh in when appropriate; please let me know if I fall asleep at the wheel and miss something! ElKevbo (talk) 17:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I am nice! OLS wants to quote stats from the June 2009 Baby Bar and say "superior performance" etc. For the previous exam, OLS's school had a zero percent pass rate (7/0). For October 2009, the pass rate was 28.6%. Perhaps the whole section should be deleted!--S. Rich 17:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how useful the section is given the small populations. It encourages readers to draw inferences and I'm not very comfortable with that. If there were some good sources that provided interpretation and context then we'd be in much better shape. In any case, this discussion should happen on the article's Talk page, not here.

And please don't think that I was implying that you're not being nice! If that is what it sounded like then I sincerely apologize. It was more of a caution as this has potential for being a frustrating interaction. ElKevbo (talk) 17:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

ElKevbo, this is your talkpage and I certainly don't want to clutter it with my prattle. My comments to you were more of a personal thank you for helping OLS along. ("Chew and swallow this message after reading!" E.g., delete.) Your words about being nice were to the wise and very well taken.--S. Rich 18:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Elkevbo. Again, your word to the wise about commenting on content is well taken. OLS is going on his/her way, and will meet with whatever success s/he deserves. Best regards.--S. Rich 03:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Earlham list question

I see that you have once again reverted the inclusion of Joseph Henry Kibbey on the list of notable Earlham College alumni. That's fine. I don't have a dog in that hunt and don't care if he's listed one way or the other. But I have a bigger question. Why in the world would you select that one name to pull from the list when the underlying article for Mr. Kibbey (with appropriate sourcing) clearly indicates that he is notable AND an Earlham alumnus? A number of others on the list are redlinked or without citation of any kind and would seem to be much higher on the "hit list" of deletions. Not trying to be argumentative--just curious about the logic behind this edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DIDouglass (talk • contribs) 11:04, July 23, 2010

I'm just taking a futile stand against the addition of even more unsourced information to the list. I know it would be easy to copy a source over but I shouldn't have to do that when the editor adding the entry should do that and knows that he or she should do that. It would probably be viewed as a bit hostile and over-the-top if I deleted all of the unsourced entries on that list.

I'm more curious about why you're stubbornly ignoring one of our core policies. ElKevbo (talk) 16:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Amherst College

Hey there, I disagree with your suggestion. Many wiki entries of other colleges have a short write-up of the their ranking or reputation in their main frame. Removing this write-up from the Amherst College main frame may be considered illogical, bigotic and weird. Please reconsider your idea. Thank you very much.

The ongoing debate on what needs to be included in that paragraph on Amherst's main frame does not warrant the need to remove the paragraph. Besides, the paragraph has been there since long time ago, and nobody else suggested to remove it.Agesworthuser (talk) 16:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Also please wait for a clear consensus before you remove that paragraph, since the paragraph has been there for a long time; I have restored the paragraph btw. Thanks. Agesworthuser (talk) 17:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

There appears to be a pretty clear consensus in the article's Talk page to remove the material. Why don't you join the discussion there? ElKevbo (talk) 17:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Protection expired

Proposal to add disputed player - see Talk:Wisconsin_Badgers_football#Protection_expired_-_add.3F. Exxolon (talk) 17:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry claims

Please be careful with socking allegations, such as you've made at Talk:Amherst College, they have the potential to derail what is otherwise a constructive debate on the issue at hand. If you've concerns and evidence, the place to raise them is at WP:SPI. Thanks. GedUK  12:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I am and I have. ElKevbo (talk) 14:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Rev. John Jenkins

You removed the references I listed for the biography for Fr. Jenkins and asked for what those were references. Each of those news releases supported and expanded upon a separate topic in the biography. Can you tell me why you removed them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbelow (talk • contribs) 12:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

A reference is something that was actually used to write the article. Those may be good resources but they're not references unless they're actually used in the article to support something. ElKevbo (talk) 13:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello. You have a new message at Nasty Housecat's talk page.

Unnecessary List and Unnecessary External Link

Today I posted some text that was pulled directly from the Gustavus Adolphus College website. After an outside perspective I realize the plagiarism that I had just enacted... that being said, I also posted a list of student activities that I thought would be interesting to be included on the Gustavus Adolphus College Wiki page.

A list of student activities could be interesting to incoming students, alumni, and other colleges.

The 'Unnecessary Link' was to a website for a specific student activity. I planned on updating as many of the items in the list with link to their page...

If I were to rewrite the content in my own words and then repost the list, could it left up on the page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DuhaimeC (talk • contribs) 22:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

First, I think it would be ok to add a brief section about student activities as long as it's not directly copied from existing text. Second, I don't think the article needs a complete list of student organizations. Third, we generally don't place links in the middle of articles. These last two points are covered by our policy reminding us that Wikipedia is not a directory (and our policy on external links for the link).

But those are my opinions and interpretations of standard practice and policy. You're free to seek other opinions and interpretations! You might be able to do so if you post on the article's Talk page. Alternatively, you can reach a group of editors interested in college and university articles here. ElKevbo (talk) 02:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Wichita State University

Hello ElKevbo, i am trying to further improve the content of the Wichita State University article, but unfortunately i have not been able to make some considerable contribution in this regard. I need help from other user to help me further improve the article which is currently too ordinary for a State institution. I would kindly request you to add more information regarding University campus and the Student life section, while I'll soon add few Photos to the sections. I hope you would accept my request. Regards! SyedMANaqvi (talk) 01:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't have any particular knowledge of that institution. I could only add information from publicly-available sources that others could access just as easily. And I'm afraid that I have neither the time nor the motivation to learn enough about the institution to make a substantial contribution to its article. Sorry! ElKevbo (talk) 01:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your prompt response, its ok if you cannot, but can you please suggest me any user that is some how related to Wichita, Kansas or Wichita State articles. Regards! SyedMANaqvi (talk) 01:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you can find others by looking at who has contributed to the WSU article and other related articles in the recent past. ElKevbo (talk) 02:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Universities Signpost Interview

Hello ElKevbo! My name is Mono and I represent the WikiProject Desk at the Signpost. Madcoverboy tells me that you are an outstanding editor for the project, so I wanted to invite you to participate in the Signpost's upcoming report on WikiProject Universities. This is an 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!  ℳono 

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Mono at 18:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC).

Schools and prisons

I responded to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Schools#School_zoning_of_employee_housing_of_U.S._prisons

WhisperToMe (talk) 18:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

George Washington

A Good Article review has started on George Washington. It is on hold for seven days to allow issues raised on Talk:George Washington/GA3 to be addressed. SilkTork *^YES! 23:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussion Point Deletions

Roger on the discussion/talk deletions. No malevolent intentions, just unfamiliar with protocol. Thanks for the correction and best wishes. -- CMSimons —Preceding unsigned comment added by CMSimons (talk • contribs) 00:51, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem! This a large and complex community so there's a steep learning curve. Have fun and let me know if I can help! ElKevbo (talk) 03:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for interviewing!

Hello, ElKevbo. I'd like to thank you for participating in The Signpost's interview of WikiProject Universities. Your time helped make it a success. Althought the report will be published soon, feel free to take a look here. Once again, thanks for stopping by. I look forward to publishing the report.

 Ⓢock 

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Mono at 23:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC).

You're welcome! ElKevbo (talk) 23:40, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Huh?

I got this comment on my talk page from you: "Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia." I've edited over 9,700 articles since January 2005 when I signed on. I am not in the habit of adding inappropriate links or material as you wrote. --- Wikiklrsc (talk) 15:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I would hope that you're not in the habit of doing so. :)

My message was regarding the links you added to eight higher education-related articles a few days ago. You added "Further reading" sections to those articles without giving any reason for adding the section and link(s) and you did so in a rather rapid manner. That's the same kind of behavior that spammers exhibit. I'm not accusing you of spamming but I hope that you can see why someone might be suspicious. (I also personally dislike "Further reading" sections as I believe the material should be incorporated into the body of the article and not placed in a section where it's impossible for readers to determine if it's useful and what in it is interesting.)

In any case, there are now a few conversations on Talk pages about the material you added so hopefully we can resolve things there. ElKevbo (talk) 15:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. To even come close to imply that I could be a "#%$mmer" it highly insulting. Look at my edits since 2005 and articles I've written. Enough. I thought those reference were VERY relevant to the articles I added them into. "Further reading" is an accepted mechanism. If I had time I would have woven them into the articles. The articles were about diploma mills, weak degrees, etc.

For example, you removed this from the Diploma mill article:

===== Further reading =====

• Gollin, George, "Unconventional University Diplomas from Online Vendors" (PDF), University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign, Center for Advanced Study, February 2003.
• Schemo, Diana Jean, "Diploma Mill Concerns Extend Beyond Fraud", The New York Times, June 29, 2008

A "Further reading" section is not "link spam". A reference to The New York Times? And to a cogent presentation by Dr. George Gollin, at University of Illinois? Had you not thought of discussion before reversion with an established editor? --- Wikiklrsc (talk) 15:41, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you disagree but you haven't convinced me that these links are valuable additions, particularly if they're just thrown into a separate section with no context. ElKevbo (talk) 15:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Interesting tactic. You should convince me why they should have beem unconditionally reverted as much as I should convince you they belong in and are relevant. We're at the very least equal editors in Wikipedia. This all feels very strange. --- Wikiklrsc (talk) 16:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The burden of evidence almost always lies on the editor(s) wishing to add information to an article. The reverse is just unworkable. Of course, I don't have a veto or any more of a voice in matters than other editors. If it's just the two of us disagreeing then the proper course of action is to get others involved (without prejudicing them or asking only those whom we believe would agree with us). ElKevbo (talk) 16:29, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 18:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm a Vandal?

I received the following message from you but it has no reference whatsoever to where the “offending” edit occurred:

Warning
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --ElKevbo (talk) 01:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I’ve never posted anything on Wikipedia with anything other than the best intent and for honest informational purposes. I also dutifully try at all times to honor other people’s interests in their intellectual properties and original works, though that is admittedly subject to interpretation and debate.

I would appreciate if you could at least inform me where it was that I allegedly “vandalized” Wikipedia, for I most certainly did no such thing. I’m happy to be edited by smarter or better informed persons than I, and I could easily be guilty of poor expression or bad style, but if I’m going to be accused of malicious intent or activities I would expect my accuser to have the decency to detail the charge and specifics and afford me the opportunity to defend myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JDBravo (talk • contribs) 17:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

That was about 9 months ago so I'm afraid I have no recollection whatsoever of what you or I did. If I was in error or unclear, I apologize! ElKevbo (talk) 17:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

RE See also

That's an awesome little bit of info to save some time and also article space. Thanks Bhockey10 (talk) 21:44, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. Most of the similar templates also take multiple parameters. If you're using a template a lot, you should definitely take a minute to check out its documentation and construction because there are probably other similar time- and space-saving features. ElKevbo (talk) 22:04, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

University of North Carolina at Charlotte

ElKevbo,

The University of North Carolina at Charlotte has deprecated the use of the acronym "UNCC" and prefers to use our full name, or UNC Charlotte as an acceptable shortened version.

This change was introduced by our chancellor in August 2008 (see http://www.publicrelations.uncc.edu/logo/intro.html). The University also has developed an Identity Standards Guide which describes the history and evolution of the University's logo and name, but stipulates that the current crown logo and proper name must be used at all times. If you are interested, this document is available online here: http://www.publicrelations.uncc.edu/logo/media/PDFs/UNC_Charlotte_ISG_2009FEB19.pdf

If you scroll to page 4 of the PDF, you'll see the the logo's progression from 1972 to the present. Further, on page 7, the guide describes the conscious decision to spell out our name vs. using the acronym "UNCC". This distinction is very important to the strength of the brand, and it is why I have been trying to keep the old acronym off of the Wikipedia page.

If you would like to discuss this in more detail, please feel free to e-mail marketing@uncc.edu. Thanks!

Cjone263 (talk) 21:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)cjone263

This is not an institutional resource and the institution can't control it or mandate anything. We welcome your input but we have our own standards, guidelines, and processes. And they dictate that we include in the lead of articles the commonly-used names and abbreviations. If your institution is successful in changing everyone else's usage we will follow suit. But not until then. ElKevbo (talk) 00:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

You also need to look into our conflict of interest guidelines if you're going to edit an article in which you have a vested interest. In many cases, we advise editors in your situation to suggest edits on the article's Talk page rather then edit the article directly to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. ElKevbo (talk) 00:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the link to the guidelines. If there is something else on the page that is incorrect, how can I correct this without violating the terms of use? Would I (or another editor) need to post a link to this talk page? What if the link goes back to the uncc.edu website - is that considered self-promotion? I appreciate your clarification on when it is okay to simply edit the article or when it needs to be discussed. And, I'm not trying to make life difficult - I just want to understand how this works. Cjone263 (talk) 17:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)cjone263

If you think an edit might be controversial, it might be best to post something to the article's Talk page. Using uncc.edu references is perfectly fine in many cases. We try to shy away from using sources published by the subject in some cases but in many cases it's okay or unavoidable so it's fine.

I know you're not trying make life difficult and we appreciate your help! ElKevbo (talk) 18:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

John Calipari photo

Why was this photo of John Calipari removed from his article? I took this photo during a game last year. Sure, I'd love to have been fortunate enough to get a face-on shot of him cheesing for the camera, but this was what I could get with a 12x zoom from about ten to fifteen rows back on the opposite side of the court. Surely, it's better than no picture at all, and I have no idea how it violates WP:BLP as your edit summary suggests. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 13:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I think it's a bad photo. It's blurry and unless he is perpetually scowling and frowning (maybe he is; I don't know :) ) it's not very representative of him. I don't agree that it's "better than no picture at all" given its quality and how it portrays the subject. Sorry! Maybe it's worth bringing up in the article's Talk page if you strongly disagree...? ElKevbo (talk) 13:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how it's much worse than this, this, this, or even this, the last of which is from a current GA. Fact is that an encyclopedia that relies on free license photographs isn't always going to get the best ones, but having some idea what the person looks like seems to me far better than nothing, especially if the article contains no description of the person physically (and most don't and shouldn't). Believe me, the next time I'm at Rupp for a game, I'll be trying to get a better shot to replace this one, but right now, this is the best WP has got. Let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good, or even the mediocre or serviceable. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 14:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not convinced. Just because some articles have shitty photos doesn't mean we should allow that in other articles. :)

Please, bring this up in the article's Talk page. I'm not the final arbiter of article content. ElKevbo (talk) 14:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

May I consider this discussion at the Village Pump sufficient grounds to replace the image, as the related discussion on the talk page has generated no feedback? Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 18:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

No. I feel a bit miffed that you would bring this up elsewhere without giving me the courtesy a notification of any sort. I assume it was just an oversight on your part but it seems awful close to "poisoning the well" to only present one side of a discussion. ElKevbo (talk) 19:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the post at VP was an attempt to get feedback on the general case, not this one instance in particular. I really wanted this for my own information since when I travel, I frequently consider what potential needed images might be available nearby. If the consensus was, get a really good picture or don't bother, I probably wouldn't bother, since I'm not a photographer and I obviously don't play a very good one on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, so far, the discussion has really only generated comments about the instant case, but as you can see from my comments there, that was not my intent. Since the vast majority of my work is content creation, I didn't know it was standard operating procedure to notify other users of related discussions, which this was meant to be. In short, no offense was intended, and I hope none will be taken. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 21:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Thank you for cleaning up the trash PanydThe muffin is not subtle 17:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

Could it be that ElKevbo is just a person with a tin of orange spray paint? I think he thinks ... he may be doing a great job but his arbitrairly removing of content - Wikipedia calls Vandalism: Blanking. How does one go about reporting ElKevbo's vandalism to higher authorities in Wikipedia?24.235.41.126 (talk) 02:28, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd recommend reviewing some of our policies and guidelines first, particularly WP:NOT. Then I'd recommend trying to discuss your issues on the article's Talk page. ElKevbo (talk) 03:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

A "go you" thread

Thanks for noticing and taking action. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Seton Hill University

Hello, ElKevbo. It is my understanding that the Not a Directory issue applies mostly to stand-alone lists. I am biased in this, since I've worked for and with some of the groups whose links your change has just removed from the Seton Hill page, and I was hoping you'd be willing to talk a bit about your edit. user:Dennis G. Jerz —Preceding undated comment added 07:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC).

Apologies for not replying sooner; I've been traveling and Internet access has been both spotty and a low priority for me. :)

It's my understanding that WP:NOTDIR applies to articles just as much as lists. The general idea is that we should be writing encyclopedia articles, not web directories such as Yahoo! or DMOZ. I think there are several good reasons for this with (a) controlling project scope creep and (b maintainability being among the best. So except for references that happen to be online, we're pretty spartan with our use of external links. (I also wonder if this has changed significantly over time as it does seem like older articles that have been edited in several years tend to be the ones with large lists of external links. It certainly wouldn't be the first time or the last time that what was once accepted or even encouraged practice fell so far out of practice that it's now strongly discouraged and edited away on sight. This is a living, evolving project!) ElKevbo (talk) 05:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:SUP and policy courses

They do, in so far as there is any activity on talk of WP:SUP (see here). Same for WP:CLASSROOM. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Glad to hear it! It just seemed odd that there was no indication on the page listing current projects. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 18:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)