User talk:ElKevbo

Archives
August 2005 – July 2006 August 2006 – October 2006 November 2006 – February 2007 March 2007 – April 2007 May 2007 – July 2007

Your Harassment of me

Any further comments from you on my talkpage will be removed. I dont like your WP:STALK of me. ExtraDry 02:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

And I don't like your namecalling, hypocrisy, current and past behavior (under this and your previous username), and ownership of the Newington College article. You display a severe misunderstanding of critical Wikipedia policies and community norms. I fully expect that you will manage to earn yourself blocks just as you did with your previous account.

In the meantime, I honestly and sincerely implore you to just step away from the Newington College article. It's not your article and your continued censorship and ownership is bad for the article and this project as a whole. I know that it's being plagued by one or more pro-Newington sockpuppets and you have my word that we won't let them whitewash the article. But you can't own the article and make it "better" by going to the other extreme as you have been doing for many, many months now. It's time to move on and leave the article in others' capable hands. --ElKevbo 02:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Reply to your statement on Talk:Michael Vick

Hello, I hope you are doing well. Just in case you are not watching Talk:Michael Vick, I am copying my reply here:

If you do not believe in contributing to this Free encyclopedia then you can either work to change our fundamental ideals (good luck with that) or contribute elsewhere. --ElKevbo 01:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

If you do not believe in making this encyclopedia the best, most informative encyclopedia it can be - which would include the legal use of fair use content, then YOU can either change our ideals or go elsewhere. The fact is that the majority of Wikipedia contributors and a vast majority of Wikipedia readers would prefer to see more fair use content since it makes for a better encyclopedia. Wikipedia did not start out as a "free content" crusade. It started out as an encyclopedia. Recently, a small handful of people have subverted the project into an open source crusade and have lost focus on making this the best encyclopedia it can be. Johntex\^talk 15:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

In other words, our current policy is a recent phenomenon, and it is not representative of the prevailing views of the community. Hopefully we will be able to turn our focus back into making the world's best encyclopedia. We should be leaving the free content crusade to WikiCommons. By the way, I have nothing at all against free content. I contribute quite a few photos to Commons. Johntex\^talk 15:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, it has always been a Free encyclopedia. The only "recent phenomenon" is a realization that we're moving away from our founding goals and ideals. I'm sorry that many of our contributors have felt free to ignore that ideal but that doesn't change the ideal or the goal. Your definition of "better" is simply not how the ideals and goals of this project define "better." If the mismatch between your own goals and that of this project differ significantly then I renew my offer that you can either work to change our goals or contribute elsewhere. --ElKevbo 15:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Reply

See my reply to your comment on my proposal here. --(Review Me) R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 23:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

US Navy Officers

It's been 30 years since I was in the Navy, but at that time a LCDR was considered a junior officer and addressed as "Mister". Nor did a LCDR have any scrambled eggs on the bill of their cover. Has this changed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulLambert (talk • contribs) 22:20, August 5, 2007 (UTC)

I got out several years ago, too, but I'm pretty sure that in the Navy LCDRs are not junior officers. The first good reference I found seems to support my memory. I don't have any of my references anymore so anything that you can find to support or refute this would be greatly appreciated! I'm having a difficult finding anything else online and I long ago gave away my Bluejacket's Manual and anything else that might be of use. The only reference I still have, my Reef Points, doesn't seem to be of any help. --ElKevbo 02:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The Centers for Disease Control states that O-4s can be addressed as "Mister". But I don't put much stock in what the CDC says on this matter. :)

Anyone got a copy of "Naval Customs and Traditions" or another authoritative guide handy? --ElKevbo 02:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

sorry about your personal page

hit the wrong button didnt know where i was — Preceding unsigned comment added by UkrNole 485 (talk • contribs) 23:22, August 5, 2007 (UTC)

No problem! --ElKevbo 03:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use images of living people

Please see WP:FU and Wikipedia:Deletion of all fair use images of living people. A free use image of Grint is necessary as he still alive and active, and a fair use image that is used to simply show his appearance is not allowed. Gran² 11:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Gotcha. Be careful throwing around Wikipedia:Deletion of all fair use images of living people as that is merely an essay and not policy. You should also definitely change the message you are putting into infoboxes as it is unclear and wrong; not having a fair use image has nothing to do with that infobox and everything to do with the image being replaceable. A link to the policy would also be most helpful for other editors.

Incidentally, what happened to the fair use image that was in that particular article, anyway? I know I've had to revert to it at least once. Was it replaced again? Please check the article's history and revert to the fair use image instead of just removing the image and replacing it with a misleading note. --ElKevbo 11:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

How is the note misleading? No fair use images to show what a person looks like are allowed, and that means in the infobox, which is where they would be put. And the image? Well it was removed, becuase it was fair use, which is not allowed... and it shouldn't be put back. Gran² 11:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Having re-read it, I agree with you, and have changed the note, as it was slightly confusing. Gran² 12:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Awesome. Thanks so much! --ElKevbo 13:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Speaker debate

FYI, Southern Texas has apparently "retired" from Wikipedia. It's too bad, I hoped we could work out a resolution. It appears that it had less to do with this and more to do with an unrelated dispute. Thought I'd let you know. Cheers, JCO312 15:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that, too. We'll see if it's a permanent retirement or a temporary respite. Things can get pretty harsh here, even between well-meaning and good-natured folks. :( --ElKevbo 15:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Calls for deletion

You might like to comment on the calls for deletion of Douglas Trathen, Michael Howe (headmaster and Headmasters' Conference of the Independent Schools of Australia. Tallum 04:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Do not message editors about AfD nominations because they support your view on the topic. This can be seen as votestacking. See Wikipedia:Canvassing for guidelines. ExtraDry 05:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Edward McSweegan

This is getting ugly, I think ... I have a funny feeling we're gonna have to call in an administrator. Blueboy96 20:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Figured I'd better put out the fire and fast--started an ANI thread here. Blueboy96 20:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar

		The Mighty Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to ElKevbo, whose idea to splinter List of YouTube celebrities off from YouTube has made each subject considerably more manageable, and whose continuing vigilance against ill-conceived or self-promotional additions to the list lends integrity to a project that many editors might otherwise dismiss. Thank you for your contributions, and keep up the good work. Ichormosquito 04:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! --ElKevbo 04:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Brandon Flowers

Applause for removing the trivia section form BF - 95% of it was redundant. I swear that article adds trivia to itself.--Esprit15d 16:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not 100% sold on the "All Trivia is EVIL!!!!" stance - but I'm getting closer as I see more of those sections with unreferenced and utterly trivial information that has no place in an encyclopedia. I hope to never be an absolutist but it's an uphill battle. --ElKevbo 16:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Speaker of the House of Representatives

Just thought I'd let you know that I suggested the list be split into its own article and your opinions would help at Talk:Speaker of the United States House of Representatives#Split of section. Thank you.--Southern Texas 17:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Talk:George W. Bush

Look at the user in question's talk page and then look at his edits and then please decide whether or not reverting me was the right thing to do.--Southern Texas 04:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not terribly concerned with his or her history as the question is legitimate. If he or she is disrupting other articles then that needs to be dealt with separately. --ElKevbo 04:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The user is a pov warrior who tries to make claims that Republicans are fascists. How is this at all appropriate for wikipedia and how would these postings help the project?--Southern Texas 04:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

That does not justify the removal of a legitimate question from an article's Talk page. I think that you and I agree that it's a stupid question that makes his or her POV transparent but that still doesn't give us the right to simply remove the question entirely. --ElKevbo 04:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The talk page was just vandalized I say just keep it like that and would probably help the project just as much,:) Its obvious that the said editor is not here to make the article better his claims don't have any factual basis. There is no question its just a rant--Southern Texas 04:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

While were talking could you help me out and look at the Speaker page above and put in your opinion about the split.--Southern Texas 04:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I honestly don't have much of an opinion on that issue. It appears to be in good hands with a good group of active and interested editors so I'm not at all worried about the outcome. --ElKevbo 04:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Derek Smart

Please take a little more care in archiving the page. You also archived the ArbCom decision header, as well as missed that just before your archive, an anon IP restored the legal threats I had just redacted. I hope I got everything that I took out the first time, but I'm not sure. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 23:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

It's your call whether or not to remove both the legal threat and all of the relatively-unrelated-to-the-threat discussion that followed; I don't care to remove materials from Talk pages unless I'm fully prepared to back up my removal.

With respect to the ArbCom header - that's not really much of a "header." If it's meant to be permanent, please either (a) add some text indicating so or (b) make it into a real Talk page header. --ElKevbo 23:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

No worries. I'm prepared to back up the legal threat discussion deletion. As for the arbcom header, I'd prefer to do option B, but embarassingly, I don't know how because I am ridiculously awful with template stuff.⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 02:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit surprised that there is not such a template already in existence. I've posted a query at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration to see if there is a template but we're just both unaware of it. --ElKevbo 02:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I can't imagine that there isn't anything for that. I could swear I've seen something to that effect. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 02:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip

Hey, thanks for the tip about the sandbox. As you suspected I was just playing around and wanted to see what it would look like, I didn't realize it would actually stay that way. I'm new at all this. I'll go check out "Editing Wikipedia" when I get a chance.

Question

Can I ask exactly why me taking you up on things you've said on my user page results in me getting blocked rather than you actually giving any kind of reason for doing so? Atraxus 00:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)