- 1 Trident University International (Also called: Sweet irony).
- 2 Help with Thunderbird School of Global Management?
- 3 The good ol' days
- 4 from Philosophy of education
- 5 History changes on Capella University
- 6 RfC philosophy of education
- 7 Gendered words and phrases vs Politically Correct Definitions
- 8 Oberlin College in Popular Culture
- 9 McGill University
- 10 Lincoln Green
Trident University International (Also called: Sweet irony).
Some more proof that Murphy's law actually exists. I mention some care with the reverts and naturally my next edit is a complete miss. Thanks for fixing that one Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 19:06, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
- Hi ElKevbo, Many thanks for your help (reverting edit) on the TUI article. I have been having a hard time with this as the IP user (using various addresses) has been removing the content on TUI offering Doctoral degree for quite a while. Does this not count as vandalizing? --Audit Guy (talk) 09:03, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, probably. If it continues we can ask for the editor to be blocked if he or she seems to be consistently using the same IP address or the article to be semi-protected so unregistered and new editors can't edit it. No big deal. ElKevbo (talk) 17:45, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- And it's already been semi-protected for two weeks by an administrator. ElKevbo (talk) 18:10, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I requested for it to be semi-protected. It appears that the IP user has now written on the talk page complaining/objecting to it. Audit Guy (talk) 03:52, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- And it's already been semi-protected for two weeks by an administrator. ElKevbo (talk) 18:10, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Help with Thunderbird School of Global Management?
Hey ElKevbo, I'm reaching out to see if you might be willing to help with reviewing and placing a new draft for the article about the Thunderbird School of Global Management, since you helped with a small thing there before. I've drafted a new version of the article, which closely complies with Wikipedia's guidelines, and uploaded it to my userspace. I've also posted a note over at Talk:Thunderbird with some details about what I've changed. If you have time, do you think you'd be willing to help work through this? Cheers! ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 17:29, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
The good ol' days
Re : While working on John Harvard (statue), I ran into a discussion in Harvard Magazine (then the Harvard Alumni Magazine, or something) from sometime in the 1920s, in which worry was expressed that a proposed tuition increase (or maybe it was tuition + costs), from something like $150 to something like $250 -- almost double! Gracious! -- threatened to transform Harvard into a school attended only by children of the elite.
Even as recently as [year redacted], when I was admitted, costs of attendance were at levels that now seem preposterously low. As I recall Harvard had just announced that total costs were rising from $6000 to $7000, and my parents were going out of their minds. How can we afford this? Should we mortgage the house? EEng (talk) 22:00, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- It wasn't very long ago that nearly all public and some private institutions were free. Some European countries (and probably on other continents) still offer free university education to citizens. This makes the meteoric rise in tuition and fees over the past couple of decades even more astonishing (and shameful in many ways). ElKevbo (talk) 22:15, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
from Philosophy of education
These secondary sources are cited in numerous Wikipedia articles . . . Eudemus ap. Proclus, 65.7 Diogenes Laertius I.27 and Plutarch (De Is. et Os. 131) Hdt. II.178; Stobaeus, Ecl., jEklogaiv ['Selections'] Strab. 17.1.18 Contra Apionem I.2
When you said . . .
- If you can't provide explicit sources that link those writing to the modern concept of "philosophy of education" as described in this article then yes, that is original research to make that link yourself. If there is such a clear and undisputed link as you seem to be claiming then it shouldn't be very hard to provide references that explicitly support that claim, right? ElKevbo (talk) 17:34, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
and these additional sources were referenced . . .
with the comment . . .
- There is nothing in the article to restrict discussion to "modern" and if there was such a restiction then the terms Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Humanism, and Constructivism would be the discussion headers . . . because those are the "modern" philosophies of education.Stmullin (talk) 18:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Leads me to believe that I am being Wiki-hounded since Thales of Miletus is an indisputable philosopher of education from Ancient Greece, evidenced by other Wikipedia article.
My web page: http://technology4kids.info/
- I'm sorry that you feel like you're being hounded but there is absolutely nothing wrong with other editors asking you for explicit references that link material you've written with the topic of the article in which you'd like that material be inserted. It's not personal and you shouldn't take it as such. ElKevbo (talk) 21:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
- Eight references were given and defended based on appropriate, accepted use in other Wikipedia articles . . . unfortunately, no one in this discussion reads Ancient Greek or has access to the original tablets so a discussion of syntax is fruitless. Stmullin (talk) 00:22, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
History changes on Capella University
Hi ElKevbo - I worked for Capella University and founded the online program/department as I documented. How is it that I would not be a reliable reference since, it is about my own work? How do artists cite themselves and comment on their own work, elsewhere on Wikipedia? Anyway, I am new at this and just learned why you've been re-editing my amendments. THX! Srarakawa (talk) 06:25, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
ElKevbo - Thank you for your quick response! I understand the point of Wikipedia (especially after really thinking about it), so I looked into some "reliable sources". The University's page itself appears to be self-referential in many spots, so I assume these qualify as creditable (and will most likely submit references of this type - if that is ok). As well, the vast majority of my references consist of private employment or business data, which is pretty hard to get a hold of this late in the game, but I will try.
Kev - a couple questions, though if you could provide clear answers... How does, let's say an artist comment on his/her own work on Wikipedia? Is the artist strictly at the mercy of someone else who can simply "publish" something in a more traditional medium and then cite it? Do some other channels for this kind of activity exist in Wikipedia? Thanks for your help ;o) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 20:40, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Kev - Thanks again for your response, but my question still remains unanswered (I think). So, let me try again... How does an artist, author or any creative comment on his own work or others comments regarding his work, when he has no "reliable" references? How does one protect from, let's say "revisionist history" or versions of history that are simply untrue (not that this is the case)? Thanks & Take Care! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srarakawa (talk • contribs) 23:07, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
RfC philosophy of education
The RfC must remain in place for 30 days before the information is reverted. If you do not reinstate the page as it was then I will take this to arbitration. Stmullin (talk) 16:06, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- You do what you feel is right. I'm not swayed by an RfC that was started only after every other editor who provided opinions weighed in against your opinion. Nor do I believe that it's necessary to draw out administrative processes unnecessarily. If this were a muddled issue, a complicated one, or one where there are clearly editors who hold many different opinions then I'd feel differently. But this is a pretty clear case.
- I won't strenuously object if you want to restore the article to it's pre-RfC state until it runs its full course. I think that's a waste of time but it won't really harm anything. (And it would be a tiny bit better than the mal-formatted version that someone else just tried out.) ElKevbo (talk) 17:49, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
The new format is the most diplomatic solution to the biography issue . . . I just hope that someone who writes well can make the Historical and theoretical roots section read like an encyclopedic article.Stmullin (talk) 19:23, 13 February 2014 (UTC) How about you? do you have time to edit that section?Stmullin (talk) 23:51, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Gendered words and phrases vs Politically Correct Definitions
There are numerous examples of words, labels and idioms that are pretty much exclusively used for one sex or the other. Constructing a dictionary that does not reflect linguistic reality and culture is both dishonest and politically correct. How often are men called sluts? How often are women labeled douchebags? Well?
The phrase "walk of shame" is applied almost universally to women. Please read the 1st 2 paragraphs of the following URL http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/04/shame-sex-women-regret-evolution for confirmation of what I thought was common knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realitybeam (talk • contribs) 16:51, February 19, 2014
- We should have exceptionally good evidence if we are going to explicitly link a pejorative to a particular group of people in an encyclopedia article. A single news article doesn't come close to meeting that bar. If you have substantial evidence supporting your assertion, please share in the Talk page of the article or add it to the article directly. ElKevbo (talk) 16:01, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker)1. This is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary; you may be looking for Wiktionary.
- 2. If you wish to have substantive discussions about topics like this, use of loaded phrases like "politically correct" is counter-indicated, as they are extremely unproductive, since they poison the well before the discussion begins. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:59, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
@Mike. A. This is the correct place. I don't appreciate your dismissive deflection. B. An initial comment "that seems a bit sexist" lobbed at me warrants a volley of "politically correct" lobbed back. C. You pick sides and condescend. Don't shake your finger at me about "unproductive." Don't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realitybeam (talk • contribs) 22:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
- Please move this conversation to the article's Talk page if we're going to discuss substantive issues related to the article. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 22:35, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Oberlin College in Popular Culture
Hello! Thanks for your edits on the Oberlin College page. I'm interested in incorporating an "In Popular Culture" section and would like to revise my edit so that it fits better within the article. I understand your suggestion for sources, but am curious if you mean more than simply proving the references exist. Is there a way you would recommend for discerning which mentions are notable and which are not? (For example, the use of Oberlin as a major plot symbol in the TV show "Girls" is more important than an briefly on an episode of "Gilmore Girls"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moonboots (talk • contribs) 20:43, February 24, 2014
- For something to be included in a Wikipedia article, we must have reliable sources supporting it. It's not enough to establish that the popular culture reference exists but you need to provide a reliable source supporting the fact that these popular culture references are significant and tied to Oberlin College. ElKevbo (talk) 03:35, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Please have a look on this GA, where my improvement of the lead was reverted by a user back to a version which, in my opinion, contradicts the wiki's rule of neutral point (due and undue weight) as quite a lot of rankings were mentioned there (they should appear on the corresponding section). Thanks! Biomedicinal (contact) 12:49, 26 February 2014
Hi- I took a bit of trouble to help this editor as I am worried that things are getting very theoretical. I rarely find any advice that can be accessed- and then understood by a newbie. I don't find the: either/or/or maybe/or yet again approach to be very helpful at newby level. I think it is admirable that we have a new editor- and isolating his first attempt at an coi article in User:/subspace- then posting it to Talk: page for in effect a peer review- sets up an easily understandable model we can use in future. As I have said already- I don't edit articles from your side of the pond but happy to give some input on structure and on which terms are a mystery for European readers, I would like to get a help template out of this that can be thrown into the general paid editing debate. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 19:49, 28 February 2014 (UTC) (The coffee is on the hob- if you fancy popping round)