This is an archive of past discussions with User:ElKevbo. 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.
I saw your message and responded there. Well done! I'm happy to put this behind us and get back to the business of writing an encyclopedia. --ElKevbo16:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Nice user page!
If you're not using your user page, you should try redirecting it to your talk. Or is this a statement on the futility of userpages in general? yandman12:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
It's a bit of a statement on user pages and their general content. I prefer to be judged by my contribution history rather than anything I have to say on my user page. It's also a parody of the blank pages you often find in US government manuals/documentation that are blank except for the statement "This page left intentionally blank." I always chuckle when I see those pages. --ElKevbo12:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Kerry article
May I recommend that you issue the same commentary and advice to other authors of the disputed section of the article? I feel it would be more beneficial if it was spread across more evenly. --PeanutCheeseBar02:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, the other editors involved are much more experienced. I am less inclined to give experienced editors as much slack as I am newer editors. If, for example, I notice that Derex has violated the 3 Revert Rule then I am not inclined to warn him or her in any manner and will simply report the violation as I expect an editor that has been here for over a year to know our rules and community standards. --ElKevbo02:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I've seen it and I'm aware of the 3RR. It's customary to advise new users of the rule, so that they don't get blocked by surprise. I don't believe I have violated it, but if I have I'll self-revert. Edit warring is never good, and I did try to sit this one out for a couple days, after initially protesting the section (see talk). It got to the point where there was so much spin and half-truth that I got tired of it and re-entered. However, I probably should have just sect-pov tagged it, and left it at that. Actually forgot about that remedy, and I'm content with it. At any rate, as I've said on talk, I have no intention of deleting anything since a proportional article clearly can't be maintained. I do however object to selective removal of sourced facts (and references themselves) that may be troublesome for PCB's POV. Derex02:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
If nothing else, I would agree that POV-section tagging the section is best at this point; however, there really is no great or obvious benefit for vigilante authors who decide to step out of discussion and edit something still in dispute, and judging by the above comment, it seems Derex was doing just that. I can't say that I am a newer editor, as I've created and edited articles for at least half a year now, and spent time reading up on Wikipedia's rules and formatting. However, since Derex was not cooperatively participating in the current discussion, I viewed him as something of a vigilante, viewed his actions to be vandalism, and since other authors have reverted his edits several times (in some cases back to an edit I made), I view the reverts as combating vandalism; the material I removed was critical of only one party, or undermined the importance of the event. I have no problem leaving in material so long as it is well-sourced, and retains the NPOV balance of the article; if nothing else can be added to eliminate POV in the article, then it simply doesn't belong in the first place. --PeanutCheeseBar03:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
You have a history of reverting the PCHS Wikipedia. Why? How come I can't put the playoff run of Celtics (with sources) but someone can put "Celtics are B.A.!" without having it deleted. Kyle Cornwell and Tommy Lenahan are valuable Alumni so why are they being deleted constantly? And what's wrong with Conor Meegan Day!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DaClint (talk • contribs) 13:32, November 12, 2006
Let's look at your latest edits:
You assert that "Coach Cogs" is slated to win the 7A IHSA State Title" but this assertion is unsupported by the provided citation. It's also purely speculative.
You assert that "Providence won 4 stright [sic] against..." which is fine by me as it is supported by the provided citation.
You added "Zach Panfil" as an alumnus which is unsupported by any citations or other evidence. I also don't know but question whether or not the NFL keeps records of "pancakes."
You added a current teacher as a noteable alumnus. I'm sure he's a great guy but he simply doesn't rise to the level of noteability necessary for inclusion in an encyclopedia.
You added a current college football player as a noteable alumnus. Again, he doesn't rise to the level of noteability necessary for inclusion in an encyclopedia.
As evidenced by the current AfD discussion, Conor Meegan definitely doesn't rise to the level of noteability necessary for inclusion in an encyclopedia.
What in the world does Church's Chicken have to do with a high school? Are they merely a sponsor of some athletic events or teams? If so, it doesn't warrant a link in the article. If not, the link must be explained because it's entirely unclear.
What is the connection between Joseph Saidu Momoh and this high school? Merely adding an "External link" (and it's not an external link; it's an internal link to another Wikipedia article) is completly insufficient to explain the connection.
So that's why I've reverted many or all of your edits. I'm sorry that you mey feel that I'm unfairly targetting you or your edits. I believe my reasoning is pretty solid but I encourage you to continue asking questions or challenging my reasons if you disagree or don't understand. In the meantime, I'm going to go through and remove many of the above edits one-by-one and explain why so it's more clear to you and everyone else. --ElKevbo19:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not ignoring the talk page. The self-ref was there before it was taken down. Until a better solution is found. I think it should saty there. Since the opinion was evenely divided, this seems like a fair thing to me. --evrik(talk)04:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. If you start handing out too many Barnstars for working on the Barnstar article you're going to overwhelm Wikipedia with irony and break it. :) --ElKevbo05:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
It's the most influential dictionary in the world because it so accessible and convenient. Everyone's on the web these days and anytime they don't know a word it's the first place they go. It's a great reference, and the fact that its on-line makes it easy for people to check our references out. Kobrakid01:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Accessibility does not imply reliability or accuracy. I do not defer to dictionary.com as an authoritative source on something as particular, nuanced, and controversial as definitions of race. It's not really worth arguing about or discussing though as there are other more pressing problems in this particular article. It's definitely got the meat for a great article but the arrangement and composition are very lacking in many places. In other words: we've got bigger fish to fry. :) --ElKevbo01:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Unreferenced section on Brown University article
Hi, are there particular statements in the Brown University campus description that you find needs references? CApitol302:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I didn't see any references provided for any of the factual statements in those sections. I thought it easier and better to use the {{unreferencedsect}} template than to tag nearly every sentence with {{fact}}. -- ElKevbo 21:53, November 27, 2006 (CDT)
ExplorerCDT
This is why I ask for discussion on changes involving Rutgers related articles, ExplorerCDT left this message on my user page.
Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.
Without implying in any fashion a sense of ownership, please stop fucking up article I've worked on by adding things that don't belong (timeline, bad form in creating two-sentence sections, etc.). I've told you before, and in this case the information you segregated as "timeline" is already in the article, and if it isn't figure a way to incorporate it in the text. How many times do I have to tell you to stop such unjustified changes. STOP renaming articles in violation of the guidelines regarding naming (common names, for one), sectioning off short one, two or three sentence sections, adding puerile or redundant "timelines" and other "fluff" that I've brought up to you before. Further reversions or edits in this regard will be reported as vandalism. —ExplorerCDT23:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.
From what little I have seen (I have not thoroughly researched this nor do I intend to right now) he appears to be acting like a jerk. I *think* I've had similar but more well-mannered encounters with ExplorerCDT as he does seem to think he owns the Rutgers article but I haven't looked into my edit history to confirm that suspicion. I'll try to weight in when he gets too far out of hand but it's best not to react when someone cries out for attention through misbehavior. Go ahead and make good-faith edits and if ExplorerCDT reverts them and I disagree then I'll say something. --ElKevbo17:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Kev - I saw your edit "I think you made a mistake, Lou," but I can't make sense of what is going on there. The diffs show all kind of old stuff with newer stuff mingled in. Do you know what happened? Lou Sander04:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
It looked like the entire contents of the Talk page were written over with the contents of another page (one of the AfD pages, IIRC). Your user account was the one associated with the edit. I'm not sure what happened - mistake on your end, obscure Wikimedia bug, glitch in the Matrix, etc. It was easy to spot and easier to fix. No big deal Lou! --ElKevbo15:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Most interesting. I can't imagine what I might have done to cause it, but computers do funny things sometimes. I HAVE been having some glitches with a new wireless keyboard, wherein mysterious keystrokes, including inserts/deletes, pop up from time to time. That might be at the root of it, but it seems pretty farfetched. Anyway, thanks for fixing the problem, and if I was at the root of it, I sure didn't MEAN to be, and I wasn't aware that it happened. Lou Sander15:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Please sign posts on Talk pages
OK, thanks for the advice, I'm new to this site. Can I ask you something else (forgive me if it sounds stupid)? If I answer your message on my talk page, will you be notified? Or do I (like now) have to edit your talk page? Thanks in advance.Stavol200:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
No, I won't be "notified" if you edit your talk page. I will, however, see on my Watchlist as any page you edit is, by default, placed on your Watchlist. You only get the orange bar at the top of your screen if someone edits your talk page specifically.
As to your other question about whether to reply here or on your talk page: it's personal preference. I prefer to keep discussions on the page on which they originated because if we place every other message on different pages the conversation quickly becomes difficult to follow. Other editors always reply on the Talk page of the person who left the message.
"German band Rammstein calls their music 'Tanz Metal', German for 'Dance Metal'."
"Ph. of Beyond Webzine is one of them. He wrote in his review about our first CD: "Rammstein has tried to seduce the public with their "Tanz Metal", but it was too square, too repititive, too industrial and in the end not very danceable."
If you still disagree, I urge you to go through every Rammstein album and remove the "Tanz-Metall" genre. Or else, as I said, you'll have just filled the discog with a false genre. --Ryouga05:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
But I still don't see in that source where they get that from i.e. when and where did "Rammstein call their music 'Tanz Metal'?" It'd be perfectly appropriate to say that "So-and-so claims that Rammstein says..." but I'm sure that you can see that we're beginning to stretch things a bit.
My issue isn't with the Tanz Metal label. I don't care about the label you apply to this band or their music. But the sources that have been cited supporting the assertions that have been made are insufficient. --ElKevbo05:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
If that's the case I shall reword it if I re-add it, according to the critic in the link I gave. I didn't realize the problem is whether they said it - I honestly don't know, but you can find countless claims that they have though. I understand what you are saying though. --Ryouga06:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for catching my mistake—it was indeed a mistake. I noticed the vandalism (statements about Micah Zimmermann taking walks or some such) and thought I reverted it, but I seem to have saved the wrong version of the page! Wareh16:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. With all due respect, they're high school students. They're also likely elected or nominated each semester or year thus leading to issues related to the WP:DATING policy. It's simply not information that should be presented in a global encyclopedia as Wikipedia is neither a directory nor an indiscriminate collection of information. It creates a maintenance problem, is useful or interesting to a very tiny minority of visitors, and fails to rise to the expected level of notability for inclusion in an encyclopedia. I'd recommend moving this conversation to the Talk page of the article if we're to continue discussing this issue. --ElKevbo03:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Sure, I will do that and I would appreciate any help i could get! Thanks!
Epistemic Merit Model... Uncalled For?
hello "ElKevbo"... you recently removed my contribution to the propaganda page (if you don't remember that would by the Epistemic Merit Model of Propaganda) for the reason that it didn't warrant an "entire section" since it gave "undue weight to a theory newly develeped and published in one cited journal article"... this seems like a valid reason for downplaying its significance... not deleting it. honestly, i have no problem with it being deleted, as long as you also delete "The Propaganda Model" section, which, it could be argued, gives undue weight to a left-wing, singe-source-cited conception of propaganda (is ten extra years really enough time to make an idea worthy of enshrinement?). i tried to be very clear in my contribution that that it was a model of propaganda that was advanced by one person in a journal article... please be more thoughtful the next you delete something and either restate it so as to de-emphasize it (if that was indeed your problem with the section) or to also delete other things that match the same line of critique you give as the reason for deletion.
Thank you for the feedback. That article is a pretty big mess. It's such a mess that I quite honestly don't know where to start to clean it up. I try to do what I can to prevent it from becoming "worse" and I apologize if my deletion appeared to be abrupt or uncalled for. If there are other sections similarly supported by only one source or otherwise given undue weight, please be bold and work on or delete them, too. --ElKevbo23:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
They are not well-intentioned edits, They are coming from sockpuppets of the school trying to make themselves look good, Have a allot at this dif [1]DXRAW20:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree that some of the edits are a bit extreme, particularly the early ones. But the section is clearly way too long and we'd all benefit if those who are interested in and knowledgeable of the institution and this incident could work together to edit that section such that it is (a) accurate and (b) in proper weight and context with the rest of the article. --ElKevbo22:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your stub submission. You may wish to note that it is preferable to use a stub template from Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types instead of using simply {{stub}}, if you can.
Thanks. Was gonna get there briefly but concentrating on removing the blatant link spam first. Appreciate the help and the suggestion! --ElKevbo04:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Plagiarism
I didn't mean that the Wiki articles were sufficient. I meant that the Wiki articles had sources. I'm now going through the laborious process of transferring your deleted content back to the page, along with references. Next time, don't just remove them; put the references from the original articles there. It'll save everyone a lot of trouble and keep meaningful, cited material on that page. Zz414 18:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
The top-30 comment was incorrect, my mistake. US News & WR have several rankings lists, and Clemson is a top-30 PUBLIC university. Hence, the other citation before. This is well documented and is part of a university-wide push to become a top-20 public university and is an important on-going program of improvement. http://www.clemson.edu/usnewsrankings/ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arwalke (talk • contribs) 22:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC).
That's a meaningless marketing term made up by Clemson. USN&WR doesn't compare all public institutions. Instead, all institutions (public and private), are first divided into distinct categories and then they are compared and ranked. It's an erroneous interpretation and repetition of the already-stated USN&WR ranking. --ElKevbo03:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't need to warn you again. I'm reporting notable facts regarding eBaumsword.com, not "pushing an agenda." Assumption of good faith is not optional. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ00:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh, please. Throwing around "assume good faith" is not a way to deal with a legitimate controversy and bullshit edits. We're just trying to "censor" you, huh? Grow up. --ElKevbo01:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, my Streisand addition was deliberately POV, to get someone's attention. But even worse is the unbalanced twisting of the Political Views section of the article -- away from her views to trivial attacks on them. This would receive a failing grade in any university class. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bellagio99 (talk • contribs) 15:23, December 29, 2006
I understand your frustration but your action was not the appropriate one. If I may suggest, why don't you calmly and respectfully detail your objections on the article's Talk page? I think that may be the most appropriate way to go about seeking change in the article if you truly believe it needs to change. --ElKevbo20:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. Please see WP:EL. Wikipedia is not a directory or indiscriminate collection of links.
Please consider participating on the article's Talk page! I imagine that much of the consternation with the link is being caused by the manner in which it is continually being readded with no discussion or communication. I don't know if you can change anyone's mind but I'm pretty sure you won't do so if you continue to add the link without any discussion whatsoever. Continuing to add the link is likely to lead to someone requesting the article be semi-protected to prevent this from happening again. --ElKevbo22:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. I think you need to see WP:EL, and see the link does not not violate any of the criteria of what should not be linked. I don't think you have even read the link, as it contains hundreds of pages of nothing but information relating to the game. And it's a particularly well known link by users at fansites as being the ultimate source of information and everything contained within it is 100% accurate and relevent. 71.114.57.18822:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Again, I would recommend taking this discussion to the article's Talk page. If this website is indeed well-known among fans of the game and you can substantiate that claim, then I'm sure you can convince us to include the link.
Please understand that we must be very cautious with external links in Wikipedia lest we become overwhelmed by everyone putting in their favorite (but irrelevant, non-notable, or generally unencyclopedic) links into articles and quickly making those sections useless. We must be very conservative so please don't take any of this personally! --ElKevbo22:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I also revert bad external links, but in this case, the link is a worthy one. And as of now, you're the only one who has been trying to remove the link. Can you take it up on the talk page before you revert the addition again?71.114.57.18822:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
There are several editors reverting this addition and you're clearly ignoring consensus and making no attempt at discussion. Please cease edit warring. --ElKevbo22:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Slick move there, trying to get the page protected instead of starting a legitimate discussion. I think I'm through discussing this reasonably with you. 71.114.57.18823:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
With all due respect, I don't think you were ever really interested in holding a "legitimate discussion" as evidenced by your continued reversions and edits in the face of overwhelming consensus with no discussion. I'd love for you to prove me wrong but I'm not holding my breath. --ElKevbo23:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
You're wrong, becauset here was no "overwhelming concesus", you are now making this up, and fail to provide proof to your hollow argument.71.114.57.18823:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay. We're done here; you can take this discussion to the article's Talk page where it belonged in the first place. In any case, have a happy New Year! --ElKevbo23:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
As can be seen here. Do you know why your constructive edit, which improved grammar and formatting, was reverted? This puzzles me. I would assume that this User Nestcott is being a vandal, but by observing his user page he makes it look like he is opposed to vandalism. 71.114.86.17500:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I've asked him or her on his or her Talk page. I am assuming he or she is a vandal but perhaps he or she is not paying sufficient attention when fighting perceived vandalism. --ElKevbo00:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
You should also reinstate your edits as you have perfect right to keep the information there as it is non-controversial and is constructive.71.114.86.17500:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I've restored your edit. There is a banned editor that has been defiantly evading his ban via sockpuppets and IP addresses. I have been actively reverting this editor per this section of WP:BAN. Forgive my oversight but in that process I mistakenly reverted your valid edits but I have since restored them. The banned user is Mactabbed/Maior and articles surrounding the Fallout series of video games are amongst his favorite pages. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if the IP user here is in fact him. Take it easy.(→Netscott)06:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I removed the MSACS mention and the logo because I was playing around with infobox length...stacking issues, etc. Forgot to put that back. What do you think of the overhaul of the article? and the level of satellite article I'm proposing to do? —ExplorerCDT05:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Looks pretty good to me. It's a bit of a large change to take in all at once so I'm sure we'll all see things as we take it in and notice things. I made a few minor changes but nothing of immense importance.
The primary maintenance issue I see right now is converting the references to the correct citation templates and adding the proper inline references from the books cited as references. That is, of course, assuming that you are aiming for GA or FA status. Both of those goals are totally realistic and GA status is probably within reach or very close right now.
I'll look at the article more and let you know of any specific suggestions. Of course, I'll also make any changes myself as reasonable. Keep up the good work! --ElKevbo05:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
If you read WP:CITE, I don't have to use any particular style of citation. So I intend to leave the refs as is in terms of method. I assume you want to switch the article over to the CSS stuff, and I'm completely uncomfortable with those templates and that style of citation. GA status is first on my list, which should be relatively easy, then Peer Review, then FA sometime after. —ExplorerCDT06:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
You don't have to use any particular style of citation, including the citation templates, but I think it's a pretty good idea. It's a pain to initially convert an article but it will save us effort in the long run. Like in webpage design, it's a good idea to separate content from presentation. When using the templates we're free to let the folks who maintain the templates worry about how the citations look; we've got more important things to do.
Maybe if I have the time at a later date I'll convert the references in this article. It's not high on my list of priorities but I think it would help in many ways. --ElKevbo06:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
P.S. Is there any way in code to have the horizontal divider for the history section to fall below the infobox. If the infobox stacks over the history section, it leaves a big gap of white space. —ExplorerCDT06:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Not that I know of. Overlapping templates, images, and sections appear to be a general problem in the Wikimedia software. The edit links often suffer from the same problem. If I figure it out I'll definitely make the necessary change(s)! --ElKevbo06:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
image_size
I have fixed the four examples you mentioned. I plan to review each article individually when the process is complete. If you see any other undesirable formatting in the meantime, you can fix it in the same way I did, or leave a list on my talk page. Regards. —freak(talk) 05:42, Dec. 31, 2006 (UTC)
Looking to nominate this article as a Featured Article candidate in a few weeks. As you are one of the recent contributors to the article, I would be grateful if you'd pipe in with some brutal suggestions to improve the article here: Wikipedia:Peer review. Thanks. —ExplorerCDT23:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Why don't you do a google search?..Google is your friend. Please get rid of those goddamn blue boxes, and use those other ones. Georgia Peachez02:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
The responsibility for providing a source lies with the editor who wishes the material to be added to or remain in an article. Assuming we're discussing the T.I. article, it's in *very* poor shape and very much below Wikipedia standards. I could add more maintenance templates as the article surely needs more work but I'm hoping the editors interested in the article get the message and work to improve. At a certain point we'll begin deleting unsourced material and I hope it doesn't come to that. --ElKevbo03:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
If you can add enough sources to justify removing the templates from some sections then please do so! If you need some help adding the sources (i.e. the <ref> formatting) please let me know! --ElKevbo04:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
In a nutshell, all of the assertions in the article must be referenced by a verifiable source (that prevents the material from being original research) and written in a neutral point of view. As far as I can tell, the single most pressing concern with that particular article are the number of factual assertions that lack references. I think that if a whole lot of references were added the article would be in okay shape.
You can find more information about creating a good page here with links to other Wikipedia pages that probably explain things better than I can.
--Update-- I finished..but I dont know how to do those "ref" things..so I just linked them. NOTE: Some of the sources came from the same website. About the background section, the source is his website..do I have to link it from his website? I got rid of the private life section because the only source I have are pictures, I dont think pictures counts as a source. I was about to update his music chart, but Billboard is tripping right now, so i'll do it later. I wish he had a picture. Georgia Peachez20:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Great! I'll take a look at it tonight when I get off of work. If I have time I'll go ahead and convert the references to use the >ref> formatting. That will help address using the same source multiple times (which is perfectly okay!). It sounds like you're off to a great start! --ElKevbo21:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
It looks pretty good! I'm sorry that I don't have much time to spend on it right now but you've definitely improved the article. Good job! --ElKevbo15:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
ElKevbo, pay attention... Uber wrote...
Time and place of execution
Saddam was executed at approximately 06:00 local time (03:00 GMT) on December 30, 2006. Ok, if he wrote some time after, that is different, there are 100;s of sources that say it was after 6, what uber is inputting, is information that was correct only first day or in the first hours after execution, again are you challenging the official death by iraqi (puppet) government, it is legal and binding.
Wiki is open place AND I DISAGREE YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO SHOW SOMEBODY'S DEATH, HOW WOULD YOU FEAL? Anybody can go on google video and find that, but when you are doing a research on saddam, why should you watch something ugly and horrific, what good does that bring, i mentioned many times in the past and i honestly am wating time here... wiki can not be uncivil, meaning spreading hate thru ugly hanging videos, where are your morals?http://www.wdbj7.com/Global/story.asp?S=5873023&nav=RmOibfFz
Why are you people disproving facts?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.99.3.118 (talk • contribs) 19:51, January 4, 2007
Remember, this video is illegal and it's nasty... If I was doing a research on Saddam and came across this, I would vomit. Also, this only increases his popularity. Videos like this are best under footnotes, this way it looks more appropriate and civil.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.99.3.118 (talk • contribs) 16:55, January 5, 2007
As I've written on the article's Talk page, I disagree with you. Unless you have something novel to add to the conversation that should be on my Talk page, please confine discussion of the article to its Talk page.
And by the way - you seem to be under the impression that I'm administrator. I'm not. I'm just a mere editor like you (albeit one who registered a username and been here for a bit). --ElKevbo00:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't mind having to go against what I said originally. I didn't know all the facts the first time, and was informed by the second time. It's Wikipedia that matters, not my reputation or me looking like an idiot. At least I'm the idiot trying to help Wikipedia -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 23:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
UWF photos
You seem like you do a lot of editing, can you help find some photos for the UWF page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vet0101 (talk • contribs) 18:16, January 5, 2007
I used to work there but I moved to Tennessee over a year ago so I don't have convenient access to the campus. Ironically, one of the photos I took when I worked for UWF is already in the article (the spring outside photo of Argo Hall). Sorry! --ElKevbo00:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Dr. Condi Rice article: Fake Quotes & Poor Editing
I removed the following sentence from the article: In 2002, Belafonte used a variation of the term, White House nigger, to characterize former Secretary of StateColin Powell and former National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice.[1] Now, there are several reasons why I removed this sentence. First of all, the article has ALL of the Harry Belafonte hatred that it needs, but also the sentence is just flat full of lies. I actually read the underlining article that supposedly serves as the citation to back up this POV BS. No where in the underlining article from Front Page magazine is the term "White House nigger" used. The term is merely the nasty, racist hatred of a Wikipedian and I tried to remove it immediately after I saw it. However, ElKevbo, who is usually a good editor, immediately reverted me without taking the time to check and see if the quote was correct or whether it was just the racist rantings of a nasty, racist Wikipedian, which of course it was. Belafonte did NOT in any way use the word "nigger" just a racist Wikipedian did. I am having feelings of deja vu. If you go back and look through the archives of this article you will see that this particular article about Dr. Condi Rice has been the target of racist hatred over and over again. Good Wikipedian editors would be on the look out for this nasty, narrow-minded, toothless hillbilly, racist, Democratic Underground tactics. If this sentence comes back in any form it will be immediately removed.--Getaway17:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I replied over on the article's Talk page. I'd appreciate an apology from you as we both are guilty of "poor editing" since we both missed that the phrase "house nigger" is not actually in the cited source. --ElKevbo17:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
You're very welcome! I thought it easier to make the changes than to try to tell you about them in the peer review. :) --ElKevbo03:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
C. S. Lewis GA nomination
Hi, I'm just letting regular contributors to the C. S. Lewis article know that its good article nomination is on hold until more references are added to the article. We have two weeks to bring the article up to the required GA standards. If you can spare some time, it'd be great if you could add some references to the article, and hopefully improve its chances of becoming a Good Article. If you know of any other editors who would be interested in helping out, please let them know. Cheers, Martin18:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Dr. Condi Rice article
Dear ElKevbo: I'm coming here first to deal with your revert of changes to the Dr. Condi Rice article. I don't want to drag this on to the talk page, but. . . Dr. Rice is a LIVING PERSON and as such certan rules apply to her. Now, she is an African-American and there is an editor has choosen to call her the n-word. I am going to apply the rules of a Biography of a Living Person--which makes it clear that information can and will be removed if it is potentially libelous. Unfortunately, you are on the wrong side of this issue. Also, your lecture to me is unwelcome. You are wrong, sorry. Please review this section of the rules (and pay special attention to the commentary of Mr. Jimbo Wales:
Reliable sources
Any assertion in a biography of a living person that might be defamatory if untrue must be sourced. Without reliable third-party sources, a biography will violate No original research and Verifiability, and could lead to libel claims.
Information available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all. Information found in self-published books, newspapers, or websites/blogs should never be used, unless written by the subject (see below).
Not all widely read newspapers and magazines are equally reliable. There are some magazines and newspapers that print gossip much of which is false. While such information may be titillating, that does not mean it has a place here. Before repeating such gossip, ask yourself if the information is presented as being true, if the source is reliable, and if the information, even if true, is relevant to an encyclopaedic article on that subject. When these magazines print information they suspect is untrue, they often include weasel phrases. Look out for these. If the magazine doesn't think the story is true, then why should we?
AND
We must get the article right. [2] Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced controversial (negative, positive, or just highly questionable) material about living persons should be removed immediately from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, and user pages.[3] These principles also apply to biographical material about living persons in other articles. The responsibility for justifying controversial claims in Wikipedia, of all kinds, but especially for living people's bios, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person making the claim. The whole policy can be reviewed here: WP:LIVING Please take the time to read the whole thing.
I'm willing to work with you, but leaving the n-word in an unimportant talk page does not agree with these principles.--Getaway00:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I understand your distaste but the use of the term was legitimate. Hell, it was even a very mild version of the term that was really implied. If it were used inappropriately then I would have no objection to removing the entire comment. But to merely remove the phrase because it offends you is wrong and not a violation of any Wikipedia policies. --ElKevbo00:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I have removed it. And I will remove it again. The policy is clear. The policy does not go away just because you have chosen to ignore it.--Getaway00:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, ElKevbo! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but please note that the link you added in is on my spam blacklist and should not be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links policy for more information. If the link was to an Imageshack or Photobucket image, please read Wikipedia's image tutorial on how to use a more appropriate method to insert the image into an article. If your link was genuine spam, please note that inserting spam into Wikipedia is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot19:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Please do not delet valuable content in the future adding a {{cite}} tag to produce a citation needed mark in the article will do fine. Deleting content does not fit into wikipedia policy, unless the editor cannot find a source. Next time, please just drop a message on the editor's talk page and they'll be happy to add sources and citations.
Also, if you'll notice, much of the rest of the article (for example the entire activities section) isn't sourced, either, so there is no precedent for removing unsourced statements in only one section. Heavy Metal Cellisttalkcontribs
WP:V clearly states that "any edit lacking a source may be removed." If the statement is non-controversial then I'm usually happy to tag it and move on. But throwing a laundry list of "criticisms" into an article with several of them being vague and unsupported is unacceptable. --ElKevbo21:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, now those are supported. I am always happy to add sources.
Also, you have recently edited the article to say "The [[Central Committee on Conscienscious Objection".... . You took out describing words, but you said you were making it more specific. How was removing the label "national" improving the article? Heavy Metal Cellisttalkcontribs
Identifying the specific organizations without adding any (perhaps POV or unsupported) adjectives makes it as specific as one can get. In my experience, adjectives are often used to add inappropriate weight to sources in Wikipedia articles. If the sources are notable enough to be included in the article (and I agree that these sources meet that threshold), let's let them stand on their own weight without us editors adding our own two cents. Let's leave the descriptions of these organizations to their respective Wikipedia articles. --ElKevbo17:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand how the adjective "national" gives inappropriate weight. The fact that you and I have both heard of the organizations I listed as nation-wide probably proves that "national" is an appropriate term for this situation.Heavy Metal Cellisttalkcontribs
Actually, until I read the article and the articles about the organizations and their webpages I had not heard of them. In fact, as both someone who participated in JROTC in the mid-90s and then went on to the US Naval Academy this entire controversy is brand new to me. As one who left the military and is now an educator I certainly empathize with the arguments presented by these organizations but the fact that (a) they are very new to me, someone who was very engaged in and close to these issues and, more importantly, (b) many of the arguments appear to be presented by a vocal minority who primarily use self-produced research to support their arguments and assertions make me very hesitant to lend these arguments or organizations much weight until more credible research can be produced or more widespread coverage can be proven (I know, I know - verifiablity, not truth).
Does that all make sense? I'm trying not to be too cautious here and keep an open mind while following appropriate Wikipedia policies. If I'm failing at any of these objectives, please let me know! --ElKevbo18:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I guess I was basing my editing off of my sphere of knowledge. I had known about both the CCCO and the AFSC before I started reading about the JROTC, so I had assumed that they were relatively well-known national organizations. I still have one more question, though; should we add in "organizations including...."? Because there are some other organizations that have webpages that promote a case against the JROTC, but that we haven't included here. Should I include them in the list, or add something like "many organizations including..."?
I wouldn't mind a "Organizations including..." but I don't like "Many organizations including..." unless we're prepared to include those other organizations or otherwise substantiate the "many" part of the claim. --ElKevbo21:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Re: OU Peer Review
Thank you very much for your changes and your review. I'll take a look at those suggestions very soon. Please keep an eye on that page as I may have questions or seek your comments on my changes. Thanks again.--NMajdan•talk18:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
No problem. Strange things happen sometimes - I've accidentally wiped out sections of articles or Talk pages myself. --ElKevbo23:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Hey Kev, Will you check out the Keller Breland page I created? I tried cleaning it up, I also added an info box and image. I'm not sure about the copyright status of the image, so I was hoping you could help me out with that. I'm new here, remember? Thanks BPBomber15:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I'd be happy to help! I made a few quick changes already and I'll sit down and give it a thorough going-over later. --ElKevbo15:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rush Limbaugh, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.
OU article up for FA
First of all, let me thank you for your tremendous help with the University of Oklahoma article. This last PR (its third) was by far the most helpful. I believe I addressed all the issues in the PR and have nominated the article for FA. Please let me know if there are any further issues that needs to be addressed or if you feel the article is now up to FA standard. I look forward to your comments. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/University of Oklahoma.↔NMajdan•talk19:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
A thank you
〈REDVEЯS〉 awards this Barnstar to ElKevbo for sterling antivandalism work that helps everybody.
Just to say thank you for your antivandalism work at Wikipedia - saw your post on ANI and your offer to step back in case you made things worse (you hadn't, you did exactly right, but I wish more people were so thoughtful!). Thanks again. Happy editing! 〈REDVEЯS〉22:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
When you make blatant accusations of bias and error in the media reports and then tell editors to request the court documents themselves (complete with missing case number), it's original research. I'd be happy to go into it more detail if you'd like and if it would be helpful. --ElKevbo23:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Threat?
You said not to threaten wikipedia editors, when, to my knowledge, I have not done so. Please Explain. 01:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Kgregory01:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I was referring to the person who left the other message on your Talk page. I also left a message on his or her Talk page. --ElKevbo01:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I was just a little confused, thanks for clearing that up! Sorry for the confusion, if ya'll have not already noticed the Biloxi High School page is constantly vandalized is their any way that just a couple of us (who actually contribute relevent information) can access it? THanks 02:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)kgregory02:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Nope. And as someone unfamiliar with the school sometimes it's hard for me to know the difference between additions of new content and vandalism. --ElKevbo02:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I completely understand, thanks for everything you all (the administrators) do do. Well the few of us who do know will continue to fix vandalism. Thanks Again kgregory 21:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
So, I have the email that UOP sent out to their employees. Should I create an additional article to have this officially put on wikipedia or how can this be cited here? Thanks Cleric23:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Apologies for taking a week to respond!
If the letter has not already been published online or elsewhere, I would suggest taking your question to Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. I suspect it would be okay to just cite the letter - there's certainly no need to publish it online. The real question would be the verifiability of an unpublished letter distributed only to the employees of a particular company. --ElKevbo16:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Block
Hi ElKevbo, you were reported for 3RR violation with the use of sock puppets. According to Wikipedia rules, as described by Arbcom, an anon-IP editing with the same pattern as a logged-in user can be considered effectively the same account. I have therefore blocked you for 1 week, during which you should familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's rules, especially those pertaining to WP:SOCK and WP:3RR. If you believe this was done in error, feel free to email me, or any other admin. Thanks you. Crum37503:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I have sent you e-mail Crum. I did find the evidence presented at the 3RR noticeboard. As noted in my e-mail, I deny the charges. I further note that the RFCU was inconclusive and that the editing is (a) inconsistent with my own editing pattern and (b) completely inconsistent with my editing history and contributions. I understand the frustration of the user who reported me as he was just blocked for violating the 3RR but I'm afraid that he or she reached an incorrect conclusion. IIRC, there were anonymous editors involved in editing that page and in that dispute before I "jumped in." At least one of the IP addresses that was alleged to my sockpuppet appears to be in or around Chicago whereas I live in (rural) Tennessee (I didn't check the other two - this is getting a bit ridiculous and my patience is beginning to wear out a bit!). Of course, we both know it's trivial to spoof IPs, go through proxies, etc. but in the absence of sufficient evidence I think it's a bit much to block an upstanding editor.
Thanks for your reply. I have replied and to keep me from having to copy this text if I should need to appeal to other admins:
I think I've been treated quite unfairly here and I'm angry that AGF doesn't apply in this situation when it must, even more than regular editing. I'm sorry that FairAndLegitimate was blocked for violating 3RR but for him or her to be allowed to lash out and make false accusations against upstanding editors is wrong. I'm sorry that I happened to agree with an anonymous editor with whom FairAndLegitimate was edit warring; in fact, I stepped in *because* of the edit war hoping that another experienced editor would be able to help the situation. That the tables were turned on me and I have been falsely accused and now blocked is extremely disheartening and discouraging.
I again ask that you view my contribution history to see how out-of-character these allegations are in light of the lack of evidence. I've participated in very heated discussions and edits, including extensive participation in the Derek Smart article (currently in arbitration). I've been accused of racism, favoritism, and all manner of foul things. To the best of my knowledge, the only time I have ever violated the 3RR I immediately self-reverted. I have never engaged in sockpuppetry. --ElKevbo04:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Kevin, please bear with us as we pursue this matter. I fully understand how frustrated you must feel if you are not the sockpuppet. Please try to understand that it takes time to sort these things out. In the meanwhile, can you take a step back and maybe catch up on RL? I'll keep you posted on our progress here. Thanks again for understanding, Crum37504:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay. I'm puzzled why you're pursuing this but you're welcome to do so in this manner. At a certain point I'll probably consider it harassment but I guess you're okay for now. --ElKevbo03:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it will go far, either. It doesn't seem like the kind of thing the in which ArbCom will get involved. I just wanted to share the latest twist in this ongoing saga with you. --ElKevbo04:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Please avoid posting in other people's sections, creating a "threaded discussion". These are generally avoided on RfAr, at the Arbitrator's wishes; if you wish/need to respond to one of Essjay's comments so that Arbitrators can see, please do so in your own statement section, and it would also be great if you could follow the same style that I did when I copied your comments (that is, <small>'''Response to [User]'s comment at [When user made comment]:'''</small>). Cheers, Daniel.Bryant07:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
-Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 23:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
