Jump to content

User talk:ElKevbo

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hennsonsc (talk | contribs) at 16:38, 1 January 2023. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

John Jay Article

Hey, I don't know how to leave a signature so sorry about that but saw your edit. Those were college majors (have provided a link to the correct source), I don't know if it's against WP policy to list the majors the college offers (if it does, please feel free to let me know or undo it and I apologize) but wanted to give you the heads up. Anyway, it is dedicated to Criminal Justice, hence the college's name (John Jay College of Criminal Justice). Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.41.108.33 (talk • contribs) 22:16, November 4, 2021 (UTC)

"don't blindly revert good edits just because an editor has been blocked"

Actually, ElKevbo, with sock puppetry, that's exactly what we do - we revert every single edit per WP:DENY because they have engaged in sockpuppetry. This has given you a chance to review the edits and ensure they are good. Yes, this editor has made a number of good copyedits, and unfortunately I was forced to revert them all, because they make edits at such a staggering rate that reviewing them all would place an undue burden on us. Thank you for reinstating the good edits.

In addition to engaging in sock puppetry, this person is engaging in actively trolling editors, so it is important per WP:DENY that their edits not be kept. I hope you'll understand. Elizium23 (talk) 16:43, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DENY isn't mandatory. Some people like it, and some people don't. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:04, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Chicago School of Professional Psychology

I would appreciate it if in the future that you avoid the sarcasm in the comments. I also don't appreciate you restructuring my comments alone on the talk page when every other comment on the page is in chronological order in the way I had originally posted it. If you have issues with edits I made, and I have left comments on the talk page regarding them, it would be appropriate to start a discussion on that page or at the very least, leave a message on my page. The lawsuit you moved into the history is for only a single campus, is 10 years old and, it is standard practice on almost all wikipedia pages to have separate sections for notable lawsuits at the bottom of the page. Usually, before sections like the notable alumni. The lawsuit is not reflective of the entire institution, or its main campus, so i believe it should have a separate section as I had it before. Also, now the formatting looks like a mess.

If you have issues, I have no problem discussing them on the talk page of the school but, please do not single out my messages on the talk page and not re-order every other comment on the page as well. The reason those comments were at the top was because the page was subjected to subjective editing which was not properly cited, contained inflammatory comments and wasn't written from a neutral point of view. After doing some research, I do agree that listing it as private university is acceptable but there are many private for profit universities as well. It would be certainly appropriate to list them either way since there is no other way to distinguish them. I hope we can continue any further discussion on the talk page of the school where this should have taken place. ScienceAdvisor (talk) 17:26, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for missing that the other sections weren't in the correct chronological order; I've fixed that now.
It is not "standard practice on almost all wikipedia pages to have separate sections for notable lawsuits at the bottom of the page." In fact, it's specifically discouraged to have "controversy" or similar sections. This is a historical event that clearly belongs in the existing "History" section. You may also find it helpful to review the advice we provide specifically for articles about colleges and universities. ElKevbo (talk) 02:42, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

I think that Template:Uw-paid1 needs some work, but before making a proposal, I'm trying to find out what causes people to choose this one, instead of a different template. I notice that you posted it at User talk:KenzieSullivan#Paid editing notice. Do you think you could explain why you thought that this person was specifically being paid, rather than having a non-paid COI (e.g., a friend or family member)? I'm hoping that your ideas will help me figure out a shorter, clearer way to approach this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:06, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but WP:OUTING prevents me from providing specific details. But I'm sure if you do a quick search of that editor's username you'll find similar materials as what I found that led me to suspect a paid editing relationship.
In general, I often use that template when there is a clear link between an editor's username and search results on the website of the specific subject on which they are focused. Many PR and communications folks at colleges and universities, for example, create an account using their name which is easily found in the institution's directory. (That's not the case for this specific editor, by the way.) ElKevbo (talk) 06:38, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If we don't already have one, it would be helpful to have a variant of this template for editors who have already told us that they have a paid editing relationship but they are editing articles anyway because they don't know about WP:PAID. A more specific but still friendly version that doesn't have the hedging language in this template but gets right to the point. I've had to edit this template to fit that mold several times and some standard, common language would be very helpful. ElKevbo (talk) 06:42, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. So far, I think we have these cases:
  1. I have solid evidence (e.g., username matches a name on the subject's corporate staff page) that tells me that you're a paid editor, and you need to disclose that connection correctly on wiki.
  2. I suspect you of being paid without any solid evidence (e.g., I can't imagine why anyone would write an article about this subject unless they were being paid; another editor told me that everyone writing about Bollywood actors was paid).
  3. You've disclosed on wiki that you're a paid editor, but you haven't done it the right way.
  4. You've disclosed that you're a paid editor, and your username violates NOSHARE (Template:Uw-coi-username, with options on #3 as well).
  5. 2 needs a lot of hedging, because the accused editor could easily turn out to be someone who isn't paid to edit at all but still has a COI (e.g., friend or family member; an employee who is updating the article on his own time, without knowledge or approval of the subject) or at least a past connection (e.g., met the subject at a public event, ex-employee who quit or retired years ago). I think the first and third could have the same message, as they only need the how-to information.
What other cases can you think of? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:06, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why delete the country from the lede?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=State_University_of_New_York_College_at_Cortland&diff=1128416400&oldid=1128413460 2603:7000:2143:8500:7108:C1BB:710F:2E5E (talk) 07:16, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because (a) there is only one Cortland, New York (and it has an article and it's linked right there in the lede sentence) and (b) we do not have any standard or agreement for requiring country be included in the lede sentence, especially when confusion about the country is unlikely. ElKevbo (talk) 20:58, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There was a recent discussion about this, which you can read at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 194#Place policy proposal. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:20, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 1 January 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:45, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MUSC

MUSC is a research university. What are you using to state it’s not? Mackaltman (talk) 16:21, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education is the standard classifier of U.S. colleges and universities. They classify MUSC as a "Special Focus Four-Year: Research Institution," not a research university (which would be "R1: Doctoral Universities – Very high research activity" or "R2: Doctoral Universities – High research activity"). ElKevbo (talk) 16:28, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The State of South Carolina deemed it a research university in 2004 due to its vast research activity spanning almost 200 years. In SC, we have three research universities (Clemson, USC, and MUSC).

https://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t11c051.php Mackaltman (talk) 16:38, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ElKevbo&oldid=1130915513"