User talk:ElKevbo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
  1. August 2005 – July 2006
  2. August 2006 – October 2006
  3. November 2006 – February 2007
  4. March 2007 – April 2007
  5. May 2007 – July 2007
  6. August 2007
  7. September – November 2007
  8. December 2007 – August 2008
  9. September 2008 – December 2008
  10. December 2008 – December 2009
  11. December 2009 – October 2010
  12. November 2010 – April 2011
  13. May 2011 – October 2011
  14. November 2011 – April 2012
  15. May 2012 – November 2012
  16. December 2012 – May 2013
  17. June 2013 – December 2013
  18. January 2014 – December 2014


Public Ivy[edit]

Hi ElKevbo: Because you are so involved in university articles, do you know if a decision was ever made by the Wikipedia community to include the term "public ivy" in an article? One was just added here, but I cannot find where a determination was made to include or exclude the term. I know a discussion has gone back and forth, and as I recall you are against including it. I appreciate any guidance on this. Best, Bahooka (talk) 18:32, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

No, I don't know of any consensus. I don't know of any historical discussions on that specific topic at that article's Talk page or any other location. I began such a discussion a few weeks ago and was letting it play out for a bit before I contributed again (I feel quite strongly and don't want anyone to feel like I'm running them over or badgering them because they have a differing opinion). I'll try to find time to move the discussion along to see if we can reach a consensus or at least a shared understanding that there isn't a consensus although I suppose a more formal RfC might garner additional input. ElKevbo (talk) 19:05, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. I will leave it alone for now. Bahooka (talk) 19:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

List of for-profit universities and colleges[edit]


For the record, if you are interested in democracy in education, please do not simply tear down this information. Find another source to modify it. dahnshaulisDahnshaulis (talk) 22:48, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Be advised that what you call "neutrality" is, in this case, complicity. The Internet bombards consumers with Ad Sense and lead generators which are undemocratic and predatory. Once information is extracted from consumers, humans and bots are used to sell these educational products to vulnerable populations (e.g. veterans, single mothers, immigrants, people with disabilities, the underemployed). dahnshaulisDahnshaulis (talk) 22:47, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I again strongly advise you to read WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. This is not the place to come if you're on a crusade. ElKevbo (talk) 22:57, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Penn State[edit]


I'm trying to change the title page as well, not just the part that I edited. Can you please let me know how to accomplish this? I do believe this to be constructive because the scandal was only partly related to Penn State, and is really centered on Jerry Sandusky and The Second Mile. Those that are accused of (allegedly) covering up the crimes are still awaiting trial. I believe a new title for this page more accurately reflects this, and is actually referenced as such in other articlas/pages on Wikipedia. I would not be opposed to changing it to The Second Mile vs. Penn State, as this is more accurate as well. To call it a Penn State scandal at this point is not accurate.

Thanks for the help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Games6 (talkcontribs) 17:11, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Please review the article's Talk page as this topic has been discussed many, many times and each time the decision has been made to leave the article in its current location. ElKevbo (talk) 22:58, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Obviously I'm new to this, but in light of the recent events regarding the invalidation of the consent decree, removal of sanctions, and other facts that have come to light, it would be prudent to change the name? I read that former NCAA chair Ed Ray admitted that he didn't read the Freeh report before sanctioning Penn State. Additionally, there are pending criminal proceedings and civil suits that may in fact reveal that there was no cover up. Isn't this an innocent until proven guilty type of scenario? In other words, Jerry Sandusky was proven guilty of a crime, and NOBODY else has. It should be the Jerry Sandusky scandal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Games6 (talkcontribs) 23:33, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Colorado Technical University[edit]

Dr. Guidry, I disagree with your assessment about my references to controversies at Colorado Technical University. These are very serious allegations that Colorado Tech has faced, from credible sources (the US Senate and NY Times).

Maybe I'm not neutral because I am a working-class veteran, but no human is actually "neutral."

Will you reinstitute this section if I compile previous and pending lawsuits againt Colorado Tech? For example... or

Also, one of the ways that for-profit colleges have gotten some form of legitmacy is by sounding like public and private schools with considerably more prestige (e.g. Virginia College, Florida Tech). That's why people should not confuse it with Georgia Tech, Cal Tech, MIT, et al.

Dahnshaulis (talk) 15:47, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

In both instances you need to provide reliable sources supporting your assertions. For the Colorado Tech lawsuits, you can't use primary sources but you need to establish that the lawsuits actually made some sort of impact beyond their mere existence. This is typically done by citing materials that others (e.g., not the lawyers or parties to the suit) have written such as news articles by reputable journalists, scholarly articles by knowledgeable scholars, etc. It's also a bit problematic that the two sources that were originally in the article both pointed to the same thing as the Senate document - produced by a single Senator's office so it's not usually viewed as objective, by the way - just mentions the same NYT article that is the other source. Without some additional language about the Senate document and hearing(s), it just seems to be "double dipping" and counting the same source twice which is misleading.
I agree that many institutions have names that are confusing and some of the most blatant are the worst diploma mills. However, our hatnotes (the term of art here for the little notices placed at the very beginning of articles) are not used to provide content that should be provided in the body of an article. The specific kind of hatnote you had inserted into the article should only be used if there is a reasonable expectation that Wikipedia readers may have landed at the wrong article and it's usually used only if there is significant confusion based on identical or similar names of different subjects. When editors disagree about the necessity of such a notice it's customary for the party who believes the notice is necessary to present evidence supporting their assertion that the two (or more) subjects are routinely confused. ElKevbo (talk) 18:13, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Guidry,

I'm not sure what happened, but the Colorado Tech article has been sanitized. Are you saying that if the US court system is "rigged" against working class people, that none of the lawsuits in question matter? So is that what I can expect from Wikipedia, a whitewashing of the facts?

I'm hypothesizing that at some point the for-profit people will whitewash all the entries that I have made. Will you be as exacting with them as you have been with me?Dahnshaulis (talk) 21:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Although I do think our adversarial legal systems favor the more wealthy simply because they can afford more and better lawyers for longer periods of time, that's unrelated to the topic of discussion. We don't use many primary sources in Wikipedia because they require interpretation which often involves some level of original research. Further, primary sources provide little if any evidence of the larger impact or context. In other words, just because a lawsuit was filed doesn't mean that it actually went anywhere or did anything. In many ways, lawsuits are like press releases in that nearly anyone can put one together for any reason but that doesn't necessarily impart them with any meaning whatsoever.
And of course I'll keep an eye out for others editing these and other articles in ways that are obviously biased or otherwise problematic. I don't recall any of the large for-profits having an organized campaign but I routinely run into individual editors from individual institutions editing their employer's article(s) e.g., GCComms (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), ACUOnlineMarketing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log).
If you're concerned about other removing or substantially editing your contributions then your best move is to make them as high quality as possible e.g., written neutrally, added only in proper proportion to their importance and impact, supported by high quality reliable sources, include well-formatted and complete references, comply with our Manual of Style. ElKevbo (talk) 21:54, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Re-nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox academic division[edit]

Kevbo, Template:Infobox academic division has been re-nominated for deletion/merger, following a DRV filed by Andy Mabbett. You are participated in the previous TfD discussion, and I thought you would like to comment on the newly re-opened/re-listed discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 January 22#Template:Infobox academic division. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:49, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

You wanna take this one?[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cabot House (2nd nomination). This guy's been PRODing, and not AfDing, Harvard houses. Haven't seen you much recently -- you might find Lionel de Jersey Harvard interesting. EEng (talk) 18:40, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I think the nominator raises a valid point that appears to have been an issue since the article was created: The article has no indication that the subject is notable. I'm afraid that I don't believe that it's sufficient to insist that notability is inherited from the university. WP:N is a core policy and it's entirely reasonable to insist that editors provide reasonable evidence of notability for the main topics of articles by supplying reliable sources, ideally independent ones. If that can't be done then we almost certainly shouldn't have an encyclopedia article about the topic.
I see how this may cause some organizational angst since it appears that some editors have put a lot of time into creating a lot of Harvard-related articles so deleting this and perhaps other articles of unproven notability might leave some awkward holes in templates and such. But it seems to be perfectly reasonable to fold this and other similar topics into the other appropriate articles as (small) sections.
That's my thinking. What's yours? ElKevbo (talk) 19:28, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
By now I'd have thought you know me well enough to know, that I know, all about INHERITED and so on (if that sentence makes sense). This has nothing to do with angst re time that's been put into the article (it's pretty poor, actually -- mostly the usual college dorm stuff). What I meant, rather (which I thought you'd understand from me telepathically, or something) is simply that since Harvard does such an unerringly thorough job of documenting its own history even as it unfolds, there's no possibility that any major component of its organizational structure isn't repeatedly covered in the Crimson, Independent, Gazette, Harvard Magazine and any number of public announcements, discussions, and published reports; plus whatever guidebooks, personal reminiscences, etc. etc. etc. happen to shake out as well. The Radcliffe houses, being younger in their final incarnations than the older River houses, never got the fawning public admiration that, say, Lowell House did for many decades, so their coverage isn't as thick on the ground, but it's there even so -- I just don't feel like digging it up and thought you'd say something convincing at AfD to save me trouble. EEng (talk)
Let's assume that you're correct about this topic being significantly covered by Harvard student publications and administrative documentation (I imagine you're correct so this isn't a stretch). The question remains: Is the coverage enough to establish notability? I could certainly find documentation on every academic department and other major units and organizations at many older, more organized, or more wealthy colleges and universities. But those documents would not necessarily mean that those topics are notable in any larger sense and deserving of an encyclopedia article. Put another way, I imagine that most editors would look askance at an article about the biology department at the University of Texas that included details such as the department's history and customs if the only available sources were University of Texas documents.
I think that reasonable editors can disagree about how to interpret WP:GNG when applied to specific topics. And I think it's reasonable to believe that this article - if additional sources such as the Crimson were added - falls in that grey area. ElKevbo (talk) 21:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
I understand all that. But, as usual with Harvard, it's not just stuff from Harvard itself, but architectural histories, guidebooks, "insider survival guides", reminiscences, and so on. I guess from our prior interactions I thought you knew that. Apologies if I'm grumpy today -- cabin fever from the blizzard. I hope you checked out Lionel. EEng (talk) 21:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Universities, etc.[edit]

Kevin, as one of the informal leaders of the WikiProject, you may want to chime in these pending TfD discussions from December 8/January 22 and November 29. I am going to request that these two TfDs (and all of the related TfDs) be closed tomorrow; in one form or another, they have been pending since the end of November, and it is evident that there is no reasoned consensus to merge the templates per the nominations of the nominator. It's time to stop the silliness, and punt this back to the WikiProject for discussion and quick resolution (7 to 10 days). Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:51, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


Please inform me smart one on how Tallahassee is not a college town? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SeminoleNation (talkcontribs) 20:23, January 31, 2015‎

It's the capital of the state and has over 180,000 residents in the city limits alone. The larger Tallahassee metropolitan area has well over 300,000 people. In what sense is that a "town" of any sort? It's certainly not a "college town" which is typically heavily reliant on and usually historically built around one or more colleges e.g., Oxford, Mississippi with the University of Mississippi; College Park, Maryland with the University of Maryland, College Park; State College, Pennsylvania with Pennsylvania State University.
In any case, the burden is on you to provide reliable sources that support your assertion. The U.S. Department of Education, for example, places FSU in a midsize city. ElKevbo (talk) 03:07, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Florida: The University[edit]

Kevin, would you be willing to do a broad-brush, ten-point review of the University of Florida article? The article is currently a mess, and requires a great deal of work. What I am looking for is your down-and-dirty list of the biggest problems. Are you willing? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:49, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

(That's a bold question to ask a University of Tennessee alumnus!) Sure. Are there any specific criteria or standards you'd like me to keep in mind e.g., WP:UNIGUIDE, WP:FA? ElKevbo (talk) 02:44, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Kevin, SEC rival rabbit-punches aside, I cannot imagine a better WP editor than you to do such a review; as a Tennessee alumnus, your familiarity with Florida should be an advantage. From where the article is now, I think the sensible starting points are WP:UNIGUIDE and WP:GA; WP:FA is far too ambitious a starting point. I'd like to fix the biggest problems, focus on imposing some semblance of consistency in usage, style, formatting and graphics, address any obvious omissions, and make a strong run at a Good Article review in the next three to four months. That would be plenty to chew on in the first half of 2015. If you would like, we can set this up as an actual peer review, so that your comments and the resulting discussions are memorialized as a talk subpage for future reference. I obviously have ideas of my own as to what should be done, but I would really like to get an objective opinion from an experienced editor with a wide range of university-related articles under his belt before undertaking major surgery on the article. Thanks for considering this. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:16, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm not terribly interested in doing anything formal or involved, at least not right now. But I'll be happy to look over the article briefly and share some of my observations and suggestions. ElKevbo (talk) 03:21, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Any way you want to deliver it, your input would be greatly appreciated. In my prior experience, the only thing "formal" about a peer review is the header at the top of the talk page. Personally, I like to have the PR subpage in the article's talk page for the simple reason that it often answers future questions about why something was done the way it was. Not much to it other than that. Think about how you would be most comfortable providing your comments and suggestions, and I'll ping you back in a few days. 'Night. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:28, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Observations and suggestions[edit]

Overall, it's a decent article given the size of the institution and the daunting task of writing one succinct article it using a group of uncoordinated, anonymous volunteers. A whole lot can be improved just by reorganizing the existing information.

I have not made reference to formal criteria such as WP:UNIGUIDE and WP:FA but my initial observations and recommendations for this article are below. Feel free to copy or move this elsewhere if that would be helpful.

1. The lead immediately jumps into silly and obvious attempts to make readers aware of the university's prestige e.g., Public Ivy, USN&WR ranking, AAU membership. These are all true facts but they're wedged in the lead very poorly and it comes across both hamhanded and POV. Some of it should be removed from the lead entirely and some of it just needs to be moved into a new paragraph and rewritten.

2. The history section is ok but it suffers from a very common problem in that in places it's simply a listing of dates and facts with no integration or context. It also ends quite abruptly with an awkward jump from 1985 to 2009 (although the preceding section has information from 2013).

3. Tuition data are out of date and lacking context. If I recall correctly from working at a SUS university for a few years, Florida public university historically had very low tuition until relatively recently. If that's accurate then it would be good contextual information. A little bit of comparative information would also be helpful for readers to place UF into context with other universities in the region or in the same general class i.e., competitors.

4. Demographic section is quite nice with very good comparative information to place it into context. It would be helpful to include the date the table was last updated in its title.

5. Ranking section is a bit unorganized and messy. Some historical information would be very welcome.

6. Admissions is short but nice. Early admit section is pretty good but it would be nice if there was any sort of followup (but there may not be anything to add).

7. Honors section is fine. The scholarships might be better left for the two articles specific to the two honors programs although a brief, one-sentence mention here would be fine.

8. Sustainability section...ugh. These sections were almost all added a few years ago by one or more SPAs. It's well-sourced and the topic is important to many institutions but as expected these sections have largely fallen out-of-date. Definitely needs to be updated and it can easily be consolidated to one paragraph unless a lot more important information can and should be added.

9. College and academic divisions seems to be woefully short and undetailed for such a critical part of any university!

10. Satellite Facilities seems to be out-of-place. Shouldn't it be in the Campus section?

11. Research section into is of adequate length and detail but seems to lack organization. In fact, the subsections in the Research section also seem to be poorly organized and appear at first glance to be more of a random-editor(s)-selected list than one reflecting careful selection and organization (which is probably what it is since it's in Wikipedia!). If there is a selection criteria or other organizing principle then it's not clear to me and it should be made clear to readers.

12. Libraries section looks fine although the picture appears to be a bit dark.

13. Two paragraphs and a list are the entirety of the campus section for one of the top public universities in the US???

14. Student Life section is mostly ok. The odd listing of "Student affairs rankings" is wildly out of place, out-of-date, and just all around bad. Student government section is overly detailed and the last two paragraphs can definitely be axed.

15. Career placement section reads like an ad for the career services center at UF. It's actually a much larger topic that should get better coverage. But as it is written the section is out-of-date and just plain uninteresting since it's describing a feature common to every university in the US.

16. Museums can be moved to Campus.

17. Performing arts and music is fine but it's a description of campus buildings that could also be moved to Campus.

18. I nominated the UF in popular culture article for deletion so I will withhold further opinions and comments on it.

19. Athletics is ok but the listing of every team seems excessive and could probably be made more aesthetically pleasing at the least by using a table. The logo image is probably a fair use violation since it's not actually discussed in the article text.

20. Notable alumni and faculty could be combined into one section.

21. University benefactors is a very odd section that seems to be entirely promotional or of interest solely to internal constituents of the university i.e., someone who works there probably added it. Without any details or interesting information it's useless information for readers.

22. See also section is unorganized and many links are already included elsewhere in the article.

23. Many references are just titles and URLs without any substantive bibliographic information.

ElKevbo (talk) 03:56, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Thanks, Kevin. These comments are a very nice starting point, and exactly the sort of feedback which I was seeking. When you have time, I'd be grateful if you add to the list as more ideas come to you. Also, which current GA articles for universities would you recommend as road maps for the improvement of the University of Florida article? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:53, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
I haven't (systematically) looked at the featured or good articles in this category in a few years so I can't name any specific ones as exemplars. If I were going to look for some exemplar articles for UF, I'd look for ones that focus on institutions that are similar to UF e.g., large, research, public, single-campus but part of a larger system. Michigan State University is a featured article and it's roughly comparable to UF so it might not be a bad article to use a model or at least an inspiration of sorts. ElKevbo (talk) 16:31, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Colorado Tech Whitewashing[edit]

Dear Dr. Guidry, I'm sorry that you whitewashed my article on Colorado Tech. I am sitting next to a former student at the school, a working-class African American and miltary vet who has burned through some of his GI bill with this school. If you really are interested in education (and justice) what would you like to say to him? I propose that you research this school yourself (and its parent corporation) and add some sections on their tuition, transferability of credits, lawsuits, etc.

Dahnshaulis (talk) 15:45, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm a volunteer and you have no right to make demands on my time. You're coming dangerously close to harassment. If you have questions about or recommendations for articles, make them in the articles' Talk pages. And you should probably review our policy regarding reliable sources if you are going to try to use sources such as yelp to add content to encyclopedia articles. ElKevbo (talk) 16:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Dear Dr. Guidry, I wasn't using Yelp as a source, but as a way of explaining what Colorado Tech is. Please also check out this source. Dahnshaulis (talk) 21:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Sports conference navboxes for non-sports subjects (?)[edit]

Kevin, can I get your reaction to this: User talk:Dirtlawyer1#navboxes by athletic conference with no relation to athletics? We deleted about a dozen similar navboxes last November, but these escaped scrutiny at the time. My inclination is to nominate them all for deletion at TfD, conference by conference. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


Thanks for your work on the Template:College-navigator template. Runner1928 (talk) 23:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Ohio Bobcats[edit]

When/if you have a moment, check on the Ohio Bobcats article again. I removed a section called "Notable competitors" since it adds absolutely nothing to the article and is written more to make the athletic program look better (not sure why...the program has plenty of accomplishments without mentioning it has played Georgetown and other "notable" teams). An editor has already reverted me twice and I expect a third time soon. I posted my reasons on the talk page, but so far no response from the other editor, just reverting. Thanks! --JonRidinger (talk) 01:54, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox academic division[edit]

Hey, Kevin. The TfD for this was finally closed today (see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 January 22#Template:Infobox academic division). Are you interested in contributing to a template talk page discussion that considers what parameters should be added to and deleted from Infobox academic division? With the addition of a handful of discipline or profession-specific parameters, this template should become the standard infobox for all constituent colleges and schools, including architecture, business, dental, divinity, engineering, fine arts, law, liberal arts, medical, nursing, pharmacy and other professional and graduate schools. I would suggest that we request input on the WikiProject Universities talk page, and I have already asked User:MindMatrix to think on it, as he is the creator of Infobox academic division. it would also be a good time to critically review Template:Infobox university, and to clearly distinguish these two templates. Please let me know what your thoughts are. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Sure. I think we'd start by understanding how the template is currently being used especially if there is tremendous variation or congruence in how specific parameters are or are not being used. ElKevbo (talk) 15:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I've set up a draft parameter map [1], so that we can start an insiders discussion before presenting a proposal on the template talk page or WikiProject Universities talk page. It's a draft, and is ready for your comments and revisions when you can get to it; we can add proposed optional discipline-specific parameters for business, divinity, law, medical schools, etc., as our reviews of existing articles indicates. At present, there are only 120+ transclusions of the template, but as modified, those uses could easily expand to several thousand articles about constituent colleges and schools. I look forward to working with you on this. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Atlantic Coast Conference student newspaper navbox, etc.[edit]

Kevin, as a follow-up to the previous discussion on my user talk page, I have nominated seven navboxes regarding student media organized by university athletic conference for deletion. As this is a subject in which you have have previously expressed an ongoing interest, you are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:15, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


Wikipedia Rollbacker.svg

I have granted rollback rights to your account. After a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, contact me and I will remove it. Good luck and thanks. – Gilliam (talk) 04:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Some edits that I reverted[edit]

I am sorry to bother you, but a good faith accidental edit by a third party cause me to suspect you of forging my signature on somebody's user page. As a precaution I temporarily blocked the external link on your userpage. That was probably an illegal step, and I apologize to Wikipedia, but in the past two weeks I have lost about 6 hours of my time dealing with malware. If you need a fuller explanation, don't hesitate to contact me. --Guy vandegrift (talk) 14:34, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

A more complete explanation is here. (I was the third party.) Dwpaul Talk 14:57, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
No problem. Thanks for the explanation! ElKevbo (talk) 16:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Vietnamese Arlington, TX[edit]

It's was deleted because it's an irrelevant fact to the demographics and extremely outdated (2000). If they were the majority of foreign born people in Arlington that'll be a different story but they're not, 10% isn't noteworthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Broadmoor (talkcontribs) 01:04, March 13, 2015‎

That would have been clear to everyone if you had used an edit summary. Please begin using them. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 06:07, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Just simply adding the Vietnamese information. It doesn't add to the content whatsoever, I don't understand why you're so adamant about it. There's far more Vietnamese/Asians outside Arlington city limits (further north) and in Houston. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Broadmoor (talkcontribs) 11:03, March 13, 2015‎
I'm not adamant about including the information; I simply didn't know why you had deleted it because you didn't use an edit summary. This is a collaborative project so you have to communicate with others. ElKevbo (talk) 17:58, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

FAMU band hazing death[edit]

(Moved from discussion above. ElKevbo (talk) 17:58, 13 March 2015 (UTC))

Side Note: The details of FAMU band hazing death is located on the band's wikipage. It doesn't need to be on the main page. Its redundant and also the graduation rate isn't part of the history of FAMU. Either create a new section that will call for the graduation rate or it's going to be gone.

Also please note I'll be filing a formal compliant. Your edits you insist on keeping are misplaced, unfair, and unnecessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Broadmoor (talkcontribs) 11:03, March 13, 2015‎

It seems completely appropriate that some sort of summary of this national news item be present on the university's main article especially since it had large-scale ramifications extended far beyond the band e.g., president resigned, regional accreditation was suspended. However, I agree that detailed information should be left for the band's article.
I'm not following you with the graduation rate comment; I don't see that my edits have included anything about graduation rates. Can you please be more specific? If there is information that's in the wrong place, please feel free to move it! ElKevbo (talk) 17:58, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
It still doesn't needs to be in two spots. It's redundant. And the hazing death wasn't responsible for the president resigning and regional accreditation issue. Cornell had a hazing death in 2012 (SAE pledge) and their president didn't resign nor was their accreditation jeopardized (that should tell you something). FAMU were having serious problems before the hazing death, it's not like the hazing death of a relatively unknown student totally destroyed everything but it seemed that way to those uneducated about the school.
And I can't move the graduation rate because there's no appropriate spot for it. Therefore it must be deleted. Since when the graduation rate is part of the history of a school. You will never see that on any other school wiki history section so why is it on FAMU? I don't understand why are you're being so difficult.
Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Broadmoor (talkcontribs) 22:50, March 13, 2015‎
Of course it's perfectly fine to have information in multiple articles when it's relevant to multiple subjects! It may not be necessary to have the exact same information in different articles but when a particular event, person, or idea is relevant in multiple contexts then it should be covered in those different contexts. It seems like you're upset about how this tragic event effected the university but that doesn't change the fact that it had significant ramifications that garnered national attention on many fronts.
And of course there are appropriate places to include information about graduation rates! "Academics" is the section that immediately jumps to my mind but I'd recommend consulting our guidelines regarding college and university articles if you're stuck and unsure where this kind of information is normally placed. A history section may not be the best place for this information in most articles but I can see how it could fit there in some contexts depending on how it's written and its role an institution's history e.g., if an institution's graduation rate has had a significant impact on its history then it should be mentioned in that section.
You're probably correct that graduation rates don't receive significant attention in many college and university articles. I imagine that's because it's a topic that hasn't received much attention at all for most institutions until the last decade or two as federal and state governments and others (those in the college rankings business, think thanks, philanthropists, the public at large, etc.) have significantly increased their demands for accountability especially in the wake of the Spellings Commission and concerns about the ever-rising costs of higher education. But graduation rates have been an issue for some institutions for some time, especially those that have historically been underfunded and those that have served populations that have historically been underserved e.g., HBCUs. That's an unfortunate reality and the sad plight of some institutions including FAMU.
I recommend you raise your concerns on the article's Talk page where other editors who are interested in the topic can more easily see your concerns and respond. It's extraordinarily unlikely that you're going to get anything helpful from WP:ANI since this is merely a content dispute that hasn't even been widely discussed among multiple editors in different venues.
Finally, you've mentioned that you think it's unfair that some issues are discussed in the FAMU article when similar issues are not discussed in other articles. It's possible that there is material missing from those other articles. If it's important and relevant then the right way to go about this is to include the information in those other articles, not to remove it from this article. It's also possible that the information hasn't received the same level of attention and had the same impact at other colleges and universities despite being similar to what has happened at FAMU. If that's the case then the coverage will of course be different in the different articles and that's just the way it goes. For better or worse, our articles must reflect the information published in reliable sources regardless of our own opinions and personal judgments. ElKevbo (talk) 07:01, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Ɱ is clearly a nut case[edit]

I noticed your recent entries on Ɱ's user talk page. Clearly, this Ɱ is a full fledged jerko, who sticks to convention (how he interprets what he calls "guidelines") to justify his "messed up" edits. He made a revert to my edits on The Culinary Institute of America at Greystone article, where he put an image back which I had moved, under the section Residence Halls. I moved the image because its placement put it on top of bullets, so that both the image and the bullets were obstructed. In his edit summary for the reversion, he stated that under Wikipedia's MOS that images should alternate right and left. So I left a message on his talk page further explaining my reasons behind my edit which I had already made in the edit summary, and asking him why he was following convention so blindly where it clearly made no sense. I left the message on his page on Feb. 20, it's in his Archive 4, #53. So he has never given me an answer, but after reading your discussion with him, I see if he did provide a reply, it would be completely evasive and not make any sense whatsoever. I see any further discussion with this person would be fruitless and I am just going to continue to leave the article alone, lest this numnutz seeks some sort of retaliation. Who knows what's up with this guy. Hey, sorry about this long post, especially since I don't know you. I usually don't leave messages for people, unless they've messaged me. Anyhow, be well. Freddiem (talk) 04:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Sweet Briar College POV[edit]

A user Sasha Levine, among other boosterisms, keeps adding non-notable alumni, despite being told to include only the ones that have their own articles on Wikipedia many times. --Cantucove (talk) 23:50, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:N only applies to primary subject of an article, not the content in an article. Specific facts included in an article can and often are included although they don't meet our notability standards.
You can object, however, if you believe the information is truly trivial or unimportant especially if it's also unsourced. We're certainly not obligated to include all information in an article even if it's true, relevant to the article's topic, and well sourced. ElKevbo (talk) 00:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
This NJIT seems to have the largest lede ever!--Cantucove (talk) 03:15, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, it does. It's not very high my to-do list but feel free to reduce its length yourself if you have the time and interest! ElKevbo (talk) 16:35, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Do you feel that Polly Sowell is notable? Share your views here.--Cantucove (talk) 03:24, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 March 2015[edit]


Reed College[edit]

sup bro, I was editing the article on Reed College when you deleted a whole paragraph from the political section, complaining of recentism. I do not think that this event will be irrelevant in 10 years, and I think the writing was impartial and written with the future in mind. Please don't delete it again. Whatever the outcome of this situation, it is most certainly going to impact the state of free speech and exchange of ideas at this college. It's important for people to be aware of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:01, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

You're edit warring with multiple editors; stop it. You don't own the article and get to decide what is added and what is removed all by yourself. ElKevbo (talk) 01:01, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Ryerson University racial controversy[edit]

I have added more sources to the Ryerson Univesity talking page for you to look at.

I also propose the information be added to the Ryerson page under a Controversies heading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:22, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you![edit]

Cup-o-coffee-simple.svg Thanks for making a judgment call on Special:Contributions/, where the user repeatedly cited sources by a researcher named Kamau, C. I think that it is right to ask the contributor to engage more deeply if they wish to share links to sources, and that posting single sentences which do not develop the articles much while injecting papers citations everywhere is not a net benefit to Wikipedia. I welcome information from those sources, but there was no attempt made to assert that those sources were thoughtfully chosen. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:13, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment requested[edit]

Would you care to comment on Talk:Florida_A&M_University#Lowest_graduation_rate. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 00:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost – Volume 11, Issue 12 – 25 March 2015[edit]

The Signpost, 1 April 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 01 April 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 01 April 2015[edit]

Connecticut College[edit]

"No thanks" to the external link of the college's newspaper, yet later at the end of the paragraph external links to a local area dining guide and a part-time internet blog, both of the same above publication, remain? Please explain. Thanks. Freddiem (talk) 02:25, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

You're right; those shouldn't be there, either. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 03:14, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
But please give exact reason why no external link on main publication, thanks. Freddiem (talk) 03:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Because there is widespread consensus to not have external links in the bodies of articles. ElKevbo (talk) 04:34, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. I definitely don't like it when an external link is placed in an article and when there's no wording, we are instead left with a numeral. Freddiem (talk) 04:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
If the link is being placed in an article to indicate where the information came from then it should be added as a reference. This is a good guide on how to add references to articles. Let me know if you need any help! ElKevbo (talk) 12:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

List of student newspapers in the United States[edit]

Related to the previous item, I don't understand why the page List of student newspapers in the United States shouldn't have external links to the papers themselves. "List of" pages typically have external links, and I believe that this comment from the EL page is relevant: "This does not apply if the external link is serving as a citation for a stand-alone list entry that otherwise meets that list's inclusion criteria." IOW, the links are effectively citations for each paper. I would favor undoing your change to the newspaper page to bring back all the links. - Eponymous-Archon (talk) 03:16, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Texas Southern University[edit]

I know we had this discussion before. Stop adding the NCAA Sanction ... I left it on the sports page for the university. It doesn't need to be on the main page of the university. Why it needs to be placed twice. And secondly the bulk of the sanctions are irrelevant now and they are not a big deal. If you're not going to add the NCAA sanctions for other universities (University of Arkansas had way more serious ones but I know you won't add it there), you shouldn't add it to any. Your biased editing practices (which I've been following) won't win this time and I will see to it.

And as said before, plenty of universities have NCAA Sanctions but it's not a standard wiki practice to place them on their wiki page unless it resulted in the termination/suspenion of a sports program. Texas Southern University situation isn't not major news worthy for main page notation, no sports program was terminated nor suspended for that matter.

Broadmoor (talk) 04:53, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

If you continue edit warring and insulting other editors you're just going to end up permanently blocked. Learn to work with others if you want to work on Wikipedia articles.
And please confine discussion of this article to its Talk page where other editors can easily see and participate. ElKevbo (talk) 12:00, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 April 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 15 April 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 22 April 2015[edit]


ElKevbo, I'm sure you've seen this on your watchlist, but Pncomeaux is back at it again renaming the Louisiana–Lafayette articles changing them to Louisiana Ragin' Cajuns in the body. I've gone ahead and warned him for a COI due to one of his edit summaries saying "our official name...". He did add a reference to the university's website for their name use, which I've seen before, but advised to take it to the talk page. I just wanted to give you a heads up because I don't think this will be the last time we see him. Corky | Chat? 16:23, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 April 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 06 May 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 13 May 2015[edit]


Hey, just FYI... You might want to see this. I've commented on Broadmoor's talk page, and the talk page of that other user. Corky | Chat? 00:47, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 May 2015[edit]

Checking in[edit]

Just wanted to let you know that your work is appreciated -- and missed. When you're tanned, rested and ready, we look forward to seeing you back at work here. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Dirtlawyer1, but I'm not sure that I will return to regular editing. As long as the community tolerates and even condones the actions of editors like Broadmoor then editing here seems like a very frustrating waste of time. ElKevbo (talk) 17:35, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
I am not familiar with that user (not am I him or her, myself), but I am familiar with how people argue over trivial matters here and delete good edits (and penalize good editors). I am sorry that you, too, have a distaste for Wikipeida. For what it's worth, I share your frustration. (A chief reason I'm not getting myself a log in here!) While your reply, above, was not to my comment, below, it seemed appropriate to reply here. For what it's worth, the other editor did reply to me here. Not sure if I have time to follow-up (or if it's worth it), but for all its problems, Wikipedia is still not all bad. Best success in your endeavors, whether you edit here a lot, a little, or none at all. (talk) 09:17, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

You gave your word, Kevin; now cashing in...[edit]

Mr. Kevin:

Please see this comparison between 2 different revisions.

As noted in this talk discussion, you gave your word that you agreed with the consensus hammered out by yourself and 2 other editors.

You said, and quote: "If it's not something written about it in the many reliable sources on this subject then it's probably not something we should include in an encyclopedia article. ElKevbo (talk) 12:36, 17 July 2014 (UTC)"

I concur with these 3 editors. The original editor could not find a reliable source for his contention, but I went back and found no less then four sources to support the edit in question.

Now, one of the other editors in reneging on the community consensus. (Things like this are why I do not register an account with these children in this wiki fantasy land!)

But, anyhow, to avoid an all-out edit war, I am coming back to the original consensus, and barring further community discussion that overrules it, asking you to uphold the community consensus here and revert the other editor, who, surprisingly was part of the original discussion but then did not keep his word. (talk) 16:02, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

PS: As a courtesy, I did notify the other editor here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:12, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

No one ever said that if you find a reliable source then we can include a line about how loan forgiveness is not inflationary. There was no "agreement." I don't think it's useful or necessary to include that line even if you did find reliable sourcing. Beyond that, though, you haven't found a reliable source for what you want to include. None of the sources you provided indicated that loan forgiveness is not inflationary. If you wish to continue this discussion please do so at Talk:College tuition in the United States. Flyte35 (talk) 17:01, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 June 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 10 June 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 17 June 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 24 June 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 01 July 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 08 July 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 15 July 2015[edit]

Ivy League references[edit]

In your own words, regarding whether or not there is a Wikipedia consensus on including references to Public "Ivy" (and similar references) in university articles:

"No, I don't know of any consensus. I don't know of any historical discussions on that specific topic at that article's Talk page or any other location. I began such a discussion a few weeks ago and was letting it play out for a bit before I contributed again (I feel quite strongly and don't want anyone to feel like I'm running them over or badgering them because they have a differing opinion"

Please leave people alone if they choose to add that phrase, particularly if they cite third-party sources in doing so. It is not acceptable for you to contradict your own words, stated above, and keep removing the phrase across Wikipedia articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Presbyterian1 (talkcontribs) 23:53, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Your insistence on declaring Furman University to be "equivalent to an Ivy League university" is not related to the "Public Ivy" discussion in any way. That discussion centers on a question of due weight to give a reliable source. You, on the other hand, aren't even citing reliable sources in your quest to promote Furman. 02:41, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 July 2015[edit]


Can you find a third-party source? "heal the wounds" sounds very flowery, not fact-based, and this is taken from the university's advertising website.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:27, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

It would certainly be better if the material came from a different source but I don't understand your objection to the material. Yes, it's representative of a point of view: Commodore Vanderbilt's point of view (or perhaps a rose-colored, idealized version of his point of view). That's not only acceptable material for this article but it's completely on-topic and informative for readers. It's only a POV problem if the material represents a Wikipedia editor's POV.
I'm sure that there are many historical sources for this university and Vanderbilt himself. Sorry but I don't happen to have any of them at hand and this doesn't appear to be important or interesting enough for me to spend time tracking those sources down.
The idea in question doesn't appear to be far-fetched or unbelievable so I'm not sure why there's such skepticism. I recommend dropping a line in the article's Talk page if you want to see if other editors have an opinion or readily available sources. ElKevbo (talk) 07:45, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
It does not sound encyclopedic. It sounds like advertising. Ergo, it should be removed.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:10, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Nah. It's not claiming that the university actually does that, it's merely stating that its founder hoped the university would do that. It's important historical and cultural context. ElKevbo (talk) 16:41, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

July 2015[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Spelman College may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Sexual assault allegations|allegations of sexual assualt]] by Bill Cosby grew more prominent.<ref>{{cite web |url= |title=Atlanta's Spelman College
  • *Donald M. Stewart (1976, under whom the departments of women's studies and chemistry were founded, and three strategic

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:46, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 July 2015[edit]


How many R's are in BRD? Where's the D? [2] That said, I believe I agree with your assessment. The Dissident Aggressor 00:45, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I count one "R" in "BRD" which is the same number of reverts I performed at that article so I don't see the problem. If you genuinely disagree then let's head over to the article's Talk page to work it out. But it's not clear to me if you have a substantive disagreement or if you reverted the unregistered editor for some other reason because you didn't use an informative edit summary; that's particularly problematic because our unregistered colleague did use an informative edit summary for his or her original edit. ElKevbo (talk) 02:28, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
It's not how many reverts you perform - it's not about you. Math is not that tough. My revert was explicitly the first as noted in the edit summary[3]. Yours was the second, hence the BRRD. As far as discussion, you might want to refer to User talk: Edit warring by a rollbacker such as yourself is not cool, whether ultimately correct or not. The Dissident Aggressor 05:08, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Washington Monthly Ranking[edit]

Hi, Just wanted to reiterate that Washington Monthly ranking is not a commonly cited source-- many liberal arts colleges (including Pomona and Middlebury) do not reference the fairly obscure ranking system on their wikipedia pages. I think the high ranking (68) unnecessarily tarnishes the ranking and perception of Claremont McKenna College. Would like to hear a reply! Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Staedtler976 (talkcontribs) 02:10, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

First, considering that there are over 4,000 colleges and universities in the U.S. being ranked 68 is pretty damn good. Moreover, it's absolutely none of our concern if a reliable source has published information that someone may consider negative ("tarnishes the ranking and perception" of the subject); to the contrary, our responsibility is to determine whether the information, good or bad, adds to a reader's understanding of the subject. It's very concerning indeed that you think that this is a valid criterion for excluding information given that neutrality is one of our core principles.
Second, that you haven't heard of the ranking or that other articles don't include it (which is a mistake that should be fixed) is no grounds to exclude informative, interesting, and relevant information from an article. You're welcome to try to argue that the ranking system doesn't pass our bar for inclusion but I don't think you'll come close to winning since so many other reliable sources have published information about or using this ranking system (it's actually fairly decent as far as flawed, commercial ranking systems go).
Rather than edit war about the issue, I recommend you first revert your most recent edit and then open a discussion in the article's Talk page. ElKevbo (talk) 02:59, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Additionally, this ranking has been included in the template since the template was originally created in 2007. There was discussion about removing this about two years ago but it looks like only one of the seven editors who participated in that discussion believed the ranking should be removed from the template.
That doesn't mean that the discussion can't be reopened or that the ranking can't be excluded from articles on a case-by-case basis but given the longstanding consensus for the ranking you need to explicitly establish that the consensus has changed or differs for this specific article. ElKevbo (talk) 03:10, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 August 2015[edit]

Why don't you do the AFD?[edit]

Why don't you do the AFD?Zigzig20s (talk) 04:06, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Because I don't really care about the article one way or the other. But a prod will only take you a few seconds. ElKevbo (talk) 04:21, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 August 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 19 August 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 26 August 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 02 September 2015[edit]

Orphaned non-free image File:Hillsdale College seal.jpg[edit]


Thanks for uploading File:Hillsdale College seal.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:41, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 September 2015[edit]

"Greek life" articles and lists of fraternities and sororities[edit]

Kevin, I thought we decided to merge, redirect or delete all of these stand-alone "Greek life at University X" articles several years ago: Category:Lists of chapters of United States student societies by college. In the interests of fairness and equal treatment, shouldn't all of these articles and lists be folded into their parent university articles? Should WikiProject Universities have a written guideline on point to support this? Just for fun, I note the UVa Greek life article is a Good Article. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:15, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm...I don't recall such a discussion so it would be helpful if you could remind me of when and where it took place. Consensus can also change so if such a discussion did take place then it may be appropriate to revisit it. I imagine that some of the articles could be merged into their parent articles without much fuss as it's likely that they're not substantial articles anyway. But there are also probably some colleges and universities that have had a particularly robust or important history of Greek life that would legitimately merit an article. ElKevbo (talk) 17:06, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
My memory may be colored by this AfD discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greek Life at the University of Florida, which references WP:UNIGUIDE, which is essentially a university-specific restatement of WP:GNG and [[WP:{ORG]]. Even if that's the only applicable guidance, the "List of fraternity and sororities at University X" articles that exist only as naked lists of links to national fraternities and sororities can be easily merged to (and better maintained as a part of) their parent university articles, as was done with the University of Florida "Greek life" article (see University of Florida#Fraternities and sororities). While that subsection can certainly be improved upon, it represents a more proportionate treatment of the Greek system within the context of the larger "Student life" section.
I don't know whether you pledged at UT or not, or what you may know of the history of Greek-letter fraternities, but some "Greek life" stand-alone articles, such as those for Union, Miami U., UVa, etc., may be easily justified because of their significance to the growth of the Greek-letter society movement in the 1800s. I do find, for example, that the UVa article's unsourced histories of the individual chapters to be extreme overkill, but that's indicative of a larger Wikipedia editorial challenge: detail and trivia overkill within the context of larger articles whose subject is notable, but whose editors lack any sense of WP:WEIGHT or editorial proportion. Neither of us has time to deal with such issues, but I think we could undertake a series of targeted AfDs and proposed merges to eliminate most of these stand-alone articles. 22:02, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

FAMU Hazing Incident on Florida Classic[edit]

The FAMU hazing incident is found on the FAMU's main wiki page, it's found on the Marching 100 wiki page. It shouldn't be found on the FAMU's Florida Football classic page. So you're telling me it needs to be found in three areas? The Florida Classic is tied to both wiki pages where it's already mentioned. And by the way, almost everything makes international news today, that doesn't mean anything. The FAMU Hazing incident doesn't need to be on the Florida Classic wiki page because that page is about the football rivalry between two football programs, it has nothing to do with the hazing incident that involved a few students in the Marching 100, that's already mentioned more than once on Wikipedia. That's irresponsible editing. Broadmoor (talk) 17:06, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome to consolidate the material in various articles so it's present in due weight, likely by including it with a few sentences and appropriate links. You're not welcome to try to scrub this from articles to protect the reputations of the groups involved. ElKevbo (talk) 17:10, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
My contention is with your biased editing and obsession with the hazing incident. Like I said before, dozens of colleges have had hazing deaths in the last five years that made national and international news but I don't see you adding it all over their wiki pages. How about you start with the Cornell University's Sigma Alpha Epsilon pledge or the Clemson University fraternity hazing death last year, but I know you won't do it. So right there I see you have an unfair agenda and I'm committed to stand up against with help from the wiki administrators. All I said was it doesn't belong on the Florida Classic wiki page and you're accusing me of trying to scrub it completely from Wikipedia, stop with the false allegations. Broadmoor (talk) 17:17, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
If I might interject, virtually all college hazing deaths are accidental, usually alcohol-related, involving a variety of people doing something stupid, often including the deceased. In the FAMU band incident, the victim died as the result of an intentional physical beating, the hazing had been condoned and/or ignored by the adult band leaders in the past, and several persons were held criminally liable for the death. That puts the "incident" in a very different league than the typical hazing death. No, it probably does not belong in the football rivalry article, but it certainly needs to be treated in the main university and band articles; it is an important and noteworthy part of the university and band's history, and cannot be whitewashed. It should be treated factually, neutrally, objectively and proportionately. To my way of thinking that means a single 4- or 5-sentence paragraph where every sentence is supported by an inline footnote to a major mainstream news source. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:44, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
P.S. It's also notable enough to have a stand-alone Wikipedia article on the subject, too. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:47, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Merge discussion - thanks![edit]

Re the HBCU tag removal and the problem editor - thanks for the heads up. I've restored the tag. Neutralitytalk 18:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Question about the University at Buffalo articles[edit]

Hey, ElKevbo! I know you deal a lot with education articles, so I have some questions about the sub-articles of the University at Buffalo. I disagreed with AlaskanNativeRU late last month on how the infoboxes should be titled... especially in the School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences article. To me, the name in the infobox is just way too long, and I don't think people want to read twenty different lines just for the title. He insisted that we have to "use the official name", although I disagree. As long as we used the title of the article, I thought it was fine. My example would be in this version and his in this version. I had this problem in the following articles: University at Buffalo School of Dental Medicine, University at Buffalo School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, University at Buffalo Law School, University at Buffalo School of Management, and University at Buffalo School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences. I'm not asking you to agree with me, but I am asking for your opinion. He has basically run me out of editing those articles, so I don't want to edit them again. It was either his way or the highway, and I tired of edit-warring with him. Thanks. Corkythehornetfan 19:23, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Stanford University[edit]

Is it ok to write things like "world's most prestigious institution" and "Stanford's academic strength is broad." Maybe it's true to some extent, but there are more stronger or at least equally strong universities with regard to academics. Universities have become like hedge funds, the bigger the endowment, the more prestigious it is. Even though, academically both Standford and CUNY are quite similar.--Yairr (talk) 19:48, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Sure it's ok if it's supported by adequate sourcing. ElKevbo (talk) 22:53, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 September 2015[edit]

University of Chicago[edit]

Hi, You removed boosterism from UChicago ,but an editor keeps adding it back, also it's everywhere [4]--Lydhia (talk) 23:09, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Take a look at University of Chicago--Lydhia (talk) 19:16, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 September 2015[edit]

Tax-exempt vs. non-profit[edit]

Not sure where to put this note...

Nonprofit status is a state law concept. Whereas tax-exempt is a federal law concept. The correct and encompassing term to describe Liberty University would be tax-exempt. Tenason (talk) 01:44, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

@Tenason: Yeah but the commonly used term is "non-profit." It's what the university itself uses and it's what we use in nearly all articles about these kinds of institutions. ElKevbo (talk) 03:13, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Seems like you happy using a marketing phrase rather than the correct terminology. Tenason (talk) 22:04, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 September 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 07 October 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 14 October 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 21 October 2015[edit]

Juniata College Page[edit]

Hello, could you please explain why you deleted everything that I recently added to the Juniata College Wikipedia page? I'm working in Juniata's marketing department and was asked to edit the page. I reviewed the Wikipedia pages of other colleges/universities in the area, and formatted ours similarly, so how is our information copyrighted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shalenmae (talkcontribs) 17:30, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Please review our policies related to conflicts of interest. In brief, you're welcome to make suggestions in Talk but you shouldn't be editing an encyclopedia article for your employer. And you shouldn't ever copy material directly from a copyrighted source into a Wikipedia article. ElKevbo (talk) 17:35, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Juniata College and User:Shalenmae[edit]

I think we need to raise this to the next level. He/She simply doesn't seem to understand WP:OWN.Naraht (talk) 14:42, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I left a formal COI warning for the editor. Hopefully this will be enough to elicit cooperation instead of continued edit warring and COI-editing that will certainly lead to a block. It's a bit unsettling that the college would allow their reputation to be publicly blackened by this behavior. ElKevbo (talk) 17:04, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
I wrote the person who I believe to be the head of the Marketing Department at Juniata, since I couldn't find an email address for her. Hopefully, that will get a response.Naraht (talk) 19:43, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi all. I apologize for not seeing posts earlier. I was notified by my employer about the issue. This was an act of ignorance, rather than a malicious intent to add content to our page. I was given the task of adding more content, since it hasn't been done in quite some time. I was not aware of the "Conflict of Interest" policies, but I will make sure to thoroughly read this and make changes appropriately. I will also notify my employers of the policies so that this does not occur again in the future. Again, my apologies. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Shalenmae (talk) 15:51, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 October 2015[edit]

Nanotechnology prizes[edit]

I maintain several lists of awards in the field of nanotechnology, including Feynman Prize in Nanotechnology, Pioneer Award in Nanotechnology, and ISNCSE prizes. What is your objection to listing recipients of the Award for Research Excellence in Nanotechnology given by UPenn? Would you rather have it as a separate article from the school's article? Thanks. Antony–22 (talkcontribs) 00:36, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I thought my edit summary was clear: There are no third-party sources that substantiate the implicit claims that the awards in that article are noteworthy. If they're something that needs to be included in an encyclopedia then editors should be able to provide reliable third-party sources establishing their importance. We're not here to simply repeat whatever an organization says about itself. ElKevbo (talk) 18:53, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Okay. So if I were to add third-party sources talking about the award, you wouldn't object to the list of awardees existing somewhere on Wikipedia? Honestly, I do agree that the University of Pennsylvania School of Engineering and Applied Science article is kind of an awkward place to put it; it would be better in its own article, or an article about the Nano/Bio Interface Center as a whole. Antony–22 (talkcontribs) 21:20, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 November 2015[edit]

Monon Bell Hack[edit]

ElKevbo, I have evidence that the Monon Bell game site was edited reflect the correct information regarding the game today, as it had not happened yet. I wanted to say thank you if that is the case. Max 2244 (talk) 20:09, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 November 2015[edit]

CSUF AANAPISI Status[edit]

You recently reverted some changes made from an anonymous IP address that removed mention of Cal State Fullerton's AANAPISI status. There is an ongoing discussion of the issue at the CSUF talk page. I thought you might want to visit and partake in the discussion.


KNHaw (talk) 00:35, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 November 2015[edit]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)