User talk:ElKevbo/Archive 15

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Dartmouth

SPI case filed. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:11, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 19:29, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Dissapointed a fellow scholar would remove valid Ph.D.research based information without a conversation.

How will we expand knowledge as scholars if we eliminate each other’s contributions to help improve the world's knowledge base? There are less than 2 percent of the world's population with Ph.D.'s and few people of this percentage take the time to try to help improve Wikipedia and disseminate valid research based knowledge from referred journals and professional research presentations. It is undoing people's work without first taking the time to dialogue with the contributor I find most distasteful. Good luck with your Ph.D. and hopefully you will not have the experience of having people eliminate your validated Ph.D. based research because someone finds it not germane and does not show the respect of discussing the issue with you.

Plato's Dog (talk) 05:26, 15 May 2012 (UTC)Plato's Dog

William Peace University listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect William Peace University. Since you had some involvement with the William Peace University redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). RadioFan (talk) 22:19, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Strayer flagship campus

The information in the article is factually incorrect. I put up the reasons why in the talk section, but I will repeat them again for you. The reference used makes no mention of Strayer even having a main or flagship campus. The Strayer corporate website makes no mention of a main or flagship campus. The article referenced is off a newswire, here is a duplicate copy. http://www.redorbit.com/news/education/659056/strayer_university_opens_town_center_opportunities According to WP "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." If you want to keep this section please provide a reference that states that this campus exists and is indeed the main campus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.199.168 (talk) 01:31, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Read the article as I edited it; it says what the source says that Strayer has its headquarters in DC. ElKevbo (talk) 03:37, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I misread your edit. I apologize for that. However, their headquarters is actually in Herndon, VA, not Washington DC. Source: http://www.costar.com/News/Article/Strayer-Education-Moving-HQ-to-Dulles-Station/107380 That article is from 2006, in 2010 they moved from Arlington, VA, which is just a few miles outside Washington DC to Herndon, VA, which is further away. Some newspapers say Washington DC because it is relatively close and most people outside the area have never heard of or have no idea where Herndon or even Arlington is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.199.168 (talk • contribs) 23:12, May 25, 2012‎

Cool. I corrected the location and added the new source. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 04:13, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Neumont University

Hi ElKevbo! Because I see that you've been watching over this article, and because I was recently caught up in a mad flurry of edits and edit conflicts there, I would appreciate you taking a look when you've got a moment. I'm currently the last editor of the page, and I just want to make sure that everything is in order before I back away from it. Please feel free to revert, restore, and/or remove from the article as you please. Thank you. :)  -- WikHead (talk) 18:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Looks good to me! :) ElKevbo (talk) 02:21, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Texas Tech University

I am not the one who put "national" before university in the Tech article. Neither am I defending its being there. I simply don't care. But I will say that denoting colleges and universities as national or regional based upon how widespread their notoriety and recruiting is is not new. I can't say, but it might have started with U.S. News rankings, which divided them into national and regional. It can be confusing. Should you be more proud if your college is ranked 50th on the national list or 10th on the regional list. Having a broader reputation can lower your rank number. Sterrettc (talk) 21:11, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's very meaningful outside of USN&WR. It's certainly not a term that is understood and used by enough people to warrant inclusion in the lead, particularly the very first sentence. If someone would like to add it elsewhere in the article - with sources, of course - then that may be ok. ElKevbo (talk) 22:14, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Notability of Academics

I replied to you on the talk page for the notability of academics. NJ Wine (talk) 02:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your comments that it's time to end the discussion. The verbiage is good as-is. NJ Wine (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:08, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. It looks like discussion has trailed off so we just to ensure that no one edits the guideline in opposition to the current consensus. ElKevbo (talk) 22:12, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. Thank you for your help. I'm getting increasingly irritated with having my changes reversed as being "without consensus", but not getting much feedback on the talk page from the individuals reversing the changes. I think it's a case of WP:DRNC. NJ Wine (talk) 05:11, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Trinity Article

I know the link references a comment, but the link goes to an article in which comments were made. The Trinity newspaper site is down for maintenance at this time. That's why it shows that placeholder sign. But it does go to an article, not a user generated comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.243.9.2 (talk) 02:01, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The link is clearly meant to go to a comment to an article. If you truly intend to cite the article, remove the last bit of the URL that is for the comment so it goes just to the article. ElKevbo (talk) 02:05, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Help Survey

Hi there, my name's Peter Coombe and I'm a Wikimedia Community Fellow working on a project to improve Wikipedia's help system. At the moment I'm trying to learn more about how people use and find the current help pages. If you could help by filling out this brief survey about your experiences, I'd be very grateful. It should take less than 10 minutes, and your responses will not be tied to your username in any way.

Thank you for your time,
the wub (talk) 18:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC) (Delivered using Global message delivery)

Trinity Hazing

The last person to edit the Trinity article accidently or inadvertantly removed the material about the hazing and then they protected the page. I would suggest that you re-add that material that was accidently removed. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trinity_University_(Texas)&action=history It appears that a lot of sock puppets had been removing the material. But the guy who removed the material looked to be under the mistaken impression that the material had been placed there by a sock, when in fact it was an IP editor (myself before I created this profile) who had reverted the vandalism from previous socks. Please fix this as I cannot. thanks. Stranded Pirate (talk) 01:01, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

It's protected so I can't edit it, either. But it's not a big deal; we can edit it in a week or so once it's been unprotected. If you really want to have an administrator make the edit now, you can try using a {{editprotected}} template in the article's Talk page to get someone's attention who can edit it. ElKevbo (talk) 01:55, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

nah, that's okay. Week isn't going to hurt. thanks! Stranded Pirate (talk) 02:00, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done --Orange Mike | Talk 02:45, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Mike! (Although it's a little creepy that you caught this from a single discussion on my Talk page... :) ). ElKevbo (talk) 02:57, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

The hazing is repeated and has been going on since 1991. That = long history of hazing. Not rocket science. The part about that frat that disbanded was in the trinity newspaper. Stranded Pirate (talk) 02:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

See this towards the bottom of the article: http://www.grotal.com/e/Trinity-University-Texas-C204 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stranded Pirate (talk • contribs) 02:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

FTC

This is a well known author and she didn't just merely write a book. She is well known. So, please once again google her. She even states in her writing and music that she is a Five Town Alumni. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SRoc2012 (talk • contribs) 19:47, June 18, 2012‎

It's not my job to provide high-quality sources supporting the edits that you have made. If this person is so well-known then surely you can provide some evidence proving it! I'll give you a few days to do so but if you don't or can't then I will remove the material again. ElKevbo (talk) 03:17, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

We appreciate that, but we too will continue to put this up! But I believe it is also your job to research and to verify before removing!! We've given multiple citing and will continue to give multiple citing. Who's to say that those aren't high quality sources? To the book world they are. They've helped get the word out about her works. We ask that you take the time to google and read reviews, articles by book clubs and others and you will see her book is well known by the public online. She has also sold and been read by readers in the hundreds of thousands. Her sales rank last year at one point was in Amazon and Barnes and Nobles Top 100 and in one Christian category top 3. Amazon and Barnes and Nobles do not send those rankings to authors but can be found on ranking pages across the internet and even on the page where the book is sold. We've provided some rankings and still there are about ten plus others. She is not merely an author but has done amazing work and has changed the lives of countless readers. We are kindly asking that you do not remove her name because you do not know her or read that particular genre but please note her online presence and reviews online speak for itself. Kindly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SRoc2012 (talk • contribs) 15:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Not sure what article is being referenced, but your assertion that "I believe it is also your job to research and to verify before removing" is in conflict with WP policy. Per WP:BURDEN, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." Maybe you weren't aware of that, but you are now. It is not incumbent upon ElKevbo to do anything before removing uncited or poorly cited content. Also, in light of your comment that "we too will continue to put this up", please read WP:EDITWAR. Don't re-add material that is being properly removed under WP:BURDEN without first showing reliable sources that support its inclusion. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 15:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

We will find other ways to resolve this.Upset (talk) 16:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're upset about. You're welcome to add the material as long as you can support it with reliable sources and it rises to the level of encyclopedic importance. You were starting to make progress in finding adequate sources when you abruptly gave up. I don't know if you gave up because you couldn't find any good sources but you're welcome to continue trying and you're certainly welcome to ask for help if you need any! ElKevbo (talk) 02:38, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

We didn't give up. We found great sources but they keep being removed. We have taken other measures. Thank you! Upset (talk) 23:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that I was the only one who removed your definition but I can certainly explain why I did so. First, it's a bit crass to add your own work to Wikipedia; it's often seen as an attempt at self-promotion and a conflict of interest. Second, I don't think adding yet another definition of empathy to that article is helpful for readers. Third, I think that if we are going to add (more) definitions of empathy to that article they should come from sources that are widely acknowledged as authoritative, preferably ones that focus exclusively on empathy.

I'm sure that you've written a fine book but because it's not exclusively about empathy I don't think it should be used to provide a definition nor should it be added to the "Further reading" section of that article. There may be some specific facts or ideas in the book that are relevant to the general topic of empathy but you should let others come to that conclusion on their own and add the material instead of doing it yourself. Alternatively, you can post suggestions in the article's Talk page if there are specific ideas or facts to which you'd like to draw editors' attention for possible inclusion in the article. ElKevbo (talk) 18:37, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Full Sail University

Hi ElKevbo, you may recall our past conversations here and here. I recognized your recent edits on the Full Sail University. I have also proposed changes to the Lead and Infobox sections; however I haven’t received a response in over a month. I am looking to reach consensus. Would you be willing to review the suggested edits in my sandbox? --Tylergarner (talk) 05:26, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

If I were in your position, I would feel ok making the proposed edits to the article. You've been transparent and given others more than ample time to review and edit your proposed changes so I don't see a need for you to continue to wait for "approvals" that may not ever be given (in fact, I'd interpret the lack of comments as tacit approval or at least a lack of disapproval). If someone objects once you make the actual edits then you can take the issue up now that you've gotten their attention. So I would recommend making the proposed edits to the article and then dropping a note in Talk updating everyone about your edits. ElKevbo (talk) 18:46, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. I have moved forward with implementing these suggested edit. --Tylergarner (talk) 19:42, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, ElKevbo. You have new messages at Ronhjones's talk page.
Message added 20:18, 3 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

 Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:18, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello, ElKevbo. You have new messages at Tonywalton's talk page.
Message added 22:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Columbia Political Review

Hi, I noted that you didn't add a discussion section for that merge proposal; I started one at Talk:Columbia_University#Merge_proposal_for_Columbia_Political_Review. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:32, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I think the case is so obvious that a discussion is unnecessary but if you'd like to start one then you're certainly welcome to do so! ElKevbo (talk) 22:11, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Please explain my "ovbious copyright violations" [Lambda Theta Phi]

please explain why you insist in removing everything i edited on MY fraternity page. everything provided on that page is 100% accurate. i find it disrespectful that you constantly remove MY fraternity's information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J.suarez 2 (talk • contribs) 02:49, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

First, you don't own that article (or any other). Second, the material you've added is copied and pasted from the fraternity's website. That material is copyrighted and can't include it in any article without permission from the copyright owner (and we usually decline such offers anyway unless the copyright owner releases the material under a free license). You're free to use the fraternity's website as a source for information but you can't just copy it.

Additionally, since you have a conflict of interest with this topic, I strongly recommend you back off, slow down, and begin discussing issues with other editors in the article's Talk page. ElKevbo (talk) 03:56, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Lambda Theta Phi

I've removed the copyvios from the history and warned the IP as well. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:16, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

What is the deal?

Mr. Guidry, While I am willing to assume that your removal of information from the Lambda Theta Phi Latin Fraternity Incorporated Wikipedia page is somehow, in what you may consider best intentions I would like some rationale. By looking at the history of your edits of this page I have noticed that any attempt to make the page anything more than it is now is either considered copyright violation or a baseless statement. This seems like a rash judgement considering that the truest information would come from the organizations national website but that would be considered a copyright violation, whereas if one were to write information similar to that on the website you would no doubt have it pulled as baseless information. So what's the deal? Is there any reason for your specific targeting of this organization, because considering the continuous editing that you do on this page and the comments you make considering Phi Iota Alpha it seems as if you have a bias placed against Lambda and if you do then why be so childish as to play this game where it's either your way or get an administrator? I used to believe that Wikipedia was really a site for open dissemination of information but considering this current situation I'm not really sure what to think. I would expect you to take the editing of ones public history more seriously considering the fact that you have a degree in Information technology but then again I really don't know you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.202.72.132 (talk) 17:29, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

There isn't anything to discuss: The material that has been removed from the article was copyrighted material copied directly from the organization's website. We can't allow editors to violate copyright in Wikipedia; it's unethical and illegal. ElKevbo (talk) 17:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Ohio University: Public Ivy

Because it is one.--Tomthedentist (talk) 17:41, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Your reference supporting this is...? ElKevbo (talk) 17:44, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Trinity Hazing part 2

What strong statement are you referring to? That part has been in the article that you agreed upon for many months now. So what's the big deal? And it is supported by the evidence. in any event, what policy basis do you have for now wanting to remove something that you earlier agreed to? The hazing is repeated and has been going on since 1991. That = long history of hazing. Not rocket science. The part about that frat that disbanded was in the trinity newspaper. Stranded Pirate (talk) 02:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

See this towards the bottom of the article: http://www.grotal.com/e/Trinity-University-Texas-C204

If the fraternity that disbanded itself is "in the trinity newspaper," please provide an explicit citation. I've looked for information and found nothing. Is the citation already in the article and I missed it? If so, please (a) point it out to me and (b) move it in the article so it directly follows the claim it's supporting.

And the "article" you just provided doesn't cut it. It's not an article at all but merely a copy of this Wikipedia article and perhaps some other documents cached by a search engine. We need something much better - a newspaper article, an official notice from the fraternity or the university, etc. ElKevbo (talk) 03:14, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Sry, didn't know there was a "we" involved who needed something much better.

UIC

Hey, Kevbo, I still am not seeing it. Is that what the entire listing is--schools under 50 years in age? I'm guessing it because it says "100 under 50", but that's only a guess. When I go to the link I can't see the article that I'm guessing accompanied the chart, and that might go a long way towards clarifying things. Any ideas? HuskyHuskie (talk) 21:25, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, the entire listing is institutions that are under 50 years of age. I don't have a link to a news article or explanatory article at hand but I'm sure a quick search will turn one up; I certainly remember there being some press coverage when the list was released a couple of weeks ago. I'm not entirely convinced that it's worth mentioning the list or ranking in encyclopedia articles but it's certainly reliable by our definition. ElKevbo (talk) 21:30, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I found a link to the main article, and added it to the UIC article. Then I went and did some reorganization (the lead was about 60% rankings, from what I saw), and I'm not sure I preserved the link I added earlier. Oh well. Fixed it. HuskyHuskie (talk) 22:23, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Notability of CWUR rankings

Hello, ElKevbo, as you've responded to the discussion of the notability of this newly created CWUR World University Rankings at the Template talk:Infobox US university ranking, I was wondering if you can come back here and continue below. Also, there is an anonymous user 121.64.175.67 who continuously keeps removing other rankings at various university articles without an explanation and inserting the CWUR rankings in its place instead, for examples, [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6].--DerechoReguerraz (talk) 22:40, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

WPGuide for Colleges

Actually, the WPGuide is negotiable. See its talk page and join the conversation today. Your remarks, thus, on the Ohio University edit source where misleading. I can help you learn more about how to post comments after edits if you'd like, or help you configure your edits prior to making them permanent. As far as future edits, consult people on their personal talk pages before making unnecessary edits with sparse rationale. Thank you. --Tomthedentist (talk) 23:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Kevbo, given his poor command of English, I know it might be tempting to dismiss Tomthedentist, but you really should look past that. Why? Because he has 17 edits ! C'mon, "join the conversation"! HuskyHuskie (talk) 01:32, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, between his three sockpuppets he has 351 edits! I can't compete with that kind of wit and productivity! ElKevbo (talk) 06:22, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

By no means do I doubt you, but how does one know that these are a bevy of socks? HuskyHuskie (talk) 02:23, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

In this case there are a couple of giveaways. First is the dates and times of the edits made by the three accounts where the three editors have, on several occasions, edited at about the same time and one right after the other. Second is the fact that these three editors have focused on the same narrow set of articles and topics. Third is the manner in which they had edited Talk pages largely to express he same opinions and support one another. Fourth, as another editor pointed out, is a fondness of two of these editors for the same obscure template.

But just to be sure, we've filed an SPI request so a check-user can look at the IP addresses for all three editors. At this point, that's an unnecessary step because the evidence above is more than sufficient to support permanently blocking two of these editors but it doesn't hurt anything to wait for the SPI results. ElKevbo (talk) 05:19, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit Questions

Hello, I recently contributed some additions to university wiki pages:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Matenji

I was just wondering why my edits were retracted; I don't exactly know who did them but since your username was in the edit history I thought I would ask you. Could you explain how I could have done a better job? It was tagged "possible BLP issue or vandalism" which I don't think applies. Thanks for your time!

Matenji (talk) 22:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I reverted (most?) of your edits. You added courses of study to articles but we usually don't include that kind of very detailed information in articles about colleges and universities. If there are particular programs that are especially notable and described by reliable sources then they'd be welcome. Otherwise, let's leave that kind of information to course catalogs, admissions brochures, institutional websites, and the like.

In the future, this is a good guide to the kind of information we typically have in college and university articles. Of course, if you have any questions or disagree then please feel free to ask questions and challenge other editors (respectfully, of course)! This would be a good place to ask questions about college or university articles that aren't specific to a particular institution. ElKevbo (talk) 04:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

removal of additions to University of Advancing Technology

Why remove external links that are relevant to university? MIT has external links outside of their mit.edu, as do many other universities. Also, many other colleges list their degree programs and departments. Why remove all of those as it describes the focus of the school? Jeb69 (talk) 17:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Please review WP:EL. In general, we're very conservative about what we place in "External links" sections and we almost always exclude links that are duplicative of links that are already included e.g. links in the same domain.

And thanks for the note about MIT; I've removed the extraneous links from that article, too! ElKevbo (talk) 17:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Can I add the degree programs in a sentence form? I noticed it this way on Full Sail and Art Institutes AI Orange County — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeb69 (talk • contribs) 18:37, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but that's not a very good example to follow! In general, it's often useful to (a) provide a few examples of degree programs and (b) discuss those that are particularly notable or interesting. Our guidelines for college and university articles has some good advice:

If there is a special course system, grading scheme, or requisites for enrollment, mention them [in the Academics section]. It would be appropriate to mention the notable academic divisions (such as faculties/schools/colleges) of this university and briefly summarize the number of enrollments. Because Wikipedia is not a directory, do not attempt to list every major, degree, or program offered in this or any section.

It might be useful to take a look at some of the Featured and Good articles at the bottom of this page if you'd like some examples that have withstood scrutiny from many editors. ElKevbo (talk) 20:21, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Removal of additions to Purdue School of Aeronautics & Astronautics

Hi ElKevbo. In your message you said that the content should be written in my own words. So to how much extent should this be the case? What if I need to use the exact same sentence for whatever reason. Is that not allowed? I was under the impression that since the page belongs to a public university that the content is public domain. Thank you, I am new to Wikipedia so I may make some errors. Aerandir90 (talk) 17:49, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

You can certainly quote material directly if it's absolutely necessary but be sure to place it in quotation marks and don't excessively quote material. This essay provides some guidance on quotations in Wikipedia articles. Remember that an encyclopedia article is a tertiary source; ideally, we summarize what other people have already summarized about subjects, using primary sources only when necessary.

Additionally, that material has been generated by a public or government institution doesn't necessarily mean that it's public domain. It would be nice if that were the case but too often it's not. :( So we can't make assumptions; we have to know for sure. ElKevbo (talk) 20:15, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Bard

Hi ElKevbo, just wondering, where did the Daily Beast copy its information from? If it's true, that's quite interesting as I have not seen any references to the original on the webpage. You mentioned that in the deletion of the ranking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jr991999 (talk • contribs) 01:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The second sentence of the source you cited says: "Newsweek ranks the schools that are most likely to keep you studying late into the night." But it doesn't say anything more such as how Newsweek ranked the schools, where they got their information, or where the original information or source can be found. If you can find the original Newsweek article or rankings then it might be worth discussing whether it should be included but the Daily Beast info is such sloppy "journalism" that we definitely shouldn't be including anything like that in an encyclopedia article. ElKevbo (talk) 10:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Daily Beast is Newsweek. The overarching company is now called The Newsweek Daily Beast Company, both companies have merged. They're the same. Visit newsweek.com and you'll be redirected to thedailybeast.com Jr991999 (talk) 15:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

You're right and I didn't know that. That makes me sad. Newsweek wasn't ever the most prestigious or respected news outlet but it's certainly several steps up from The Daily Beast. :(

But this still doesn't do much to establish the reliability of this ranking. Who compiled the information? How did they get it? How was the ranking system created and implemented? Without some of those kinds of details, I can't recommend using this ranking system in any encyclopedia article - or anywhere else whatsoever. ElKevbo (talk) 16:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I've copied the above discussion to the article's Talk page so other editors can more easily read and contribute to the discussion. Let's continue this over there. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 16:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Harvard University (Notable people)". Thank you. --— Bdb484 (talk) 13:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Lighten up, Francis!

 :-)

Ok, so we DON'T get a win out of the deal, but, in the parlance of the NCAA, the losses are also not counted for opposing teams. I updated accordingly. Buffs (talk) 00:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Oldest universities

Hello,

This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#List of oldest universities regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

Thank you.

--Omar-toons (talk) 18:32, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamie Comstock

In case you had this AFD watchlisted, please note that it's been moved to the correct page name. Cheers, postdlf (talk) 19:14, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 04:55, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Stuyvesant High School Featured Article Review

The Stuyvesant High School article has been listed at Featured Article Review at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Stuyvesant High School/archive2. Concerns expressed by User:TenPoundHammer include:

• Very many portions of the article are unsourced.
• The article's structure is very sloppy, with loads of very short paragraphs and standalone sentences. A major copy edit is needed. (For instance, nearly every sentence in "History" begins with "In [year]…".)
• Dubious lists ("Other publications" and "summary of floors") that are also unsourced.
• Entirely unsourced segments ("SING!").
• "In popular culture" is a mess of trivia.
• Another editor also raised concern that some of the text seems promotional. I tagged at least one section ("strength in areas such as math and science").
• I also see a very high number of primary sources.

Editors are invited to address the issues in order to prevent this article from being delisted from FA.

As someone who was notified on previous FARs, I thought you might be interested. RossPatterson (talk) 22:51, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Notable Strayer alumni

I did some research on wikipedia editor Russpetcoff. He works for JANSON Communications and Janet M. Chihocky is his boss. I think this definitely qualifies as COI. See here: http://www.jansoncom.com/about-us/janson-team/russ-petcoff/ He also edited another article in which he removed all the criticisms regarding some government contract.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.199.168 (talk) 20:00, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Please be careful when examining and posting allegations about Wikipedia editors' identities and personal information. I don't have a good grasp on where exactly we draw the line but there is a strong belief among some editors that posting any information in Wikipedia about an editor that the editor hasn't him or herself shared is a problem. ElKevbo (talk) 21:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

How should this problem be handled? There are too many PR people and "social media" consultants trolling wikipedia already.72.196.199.168 (talk) 01:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure. This particular instance doesn't seem to cry out for a new policy or guideline as the problematic content was handled quite well within our normal processes. If you have more examples or ideas, please share! ElKevbo (talk) 01:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Kaplan University

As for the allegations, I haven't introduced any new content in my edit; the paragraph I reinstated was an orphan from an inappropriate section I had to blank. I just placed it in the least wrong place. complainer (talk) 17:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that; no problem! ElKevbo (talk) 17:59, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of MMM-2011 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article MMM-2011 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MMM-2011 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.. Monty₈₄₅ 02:54, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Monroe College football team

Curious to know how to properly cite a article from the web. I added some new content to a page and have a link from where I am citing my information but cite does not seem to be working. Added text so far is:

Men's Football In August or 2012, Monroe College embarked on a new Football program.

Any help would be appreciated as I am new to Wikipedia and plan on making many edits in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shane Seaman (talk • contribs) 08:51, September 19, 2012‎

I edited the article to clean up the text a little bit and add the reference citation. I used the {{cite web}} template so take a look at what I did; it's fairly straight-forward once you've used it a few times but please let me know if you have any questions or need any help! ElKevbo (talk) 18:26, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, ElKevbo. You have new messages at Talk:City College of San Francisco.
Message added 09:30, 23 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

FYI Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:30, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Reverted

Your recent edit to WP:ANI per WP:DNFTT. Filing at WP:SPI would be a better, quieter way to ask for checkuser attention. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Do not taunt happy fun ball. Seeing that section header nearly earned you a block. I hope it was a one time mistake.--Tznkai (talk) 20:38, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Tznkai, are you speaking to me or Beeblebrox? ElKevbo (talk) 20:49, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

You, the author of the section. Sorry if I was unclear.--Tznkai (talk) 21:06, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I have to admit my initial thoughts was also of blocking on the presumption that you were another sock and it was only after checking your contribs that it seemed clear this was not the case. You were playing right into this guys desire by posting such a thread. He wants to be infamous, apparently believing he is some dangerous bandit because he can find more than one IP to create an account from. He should be treated like what he is: an insignificant nobody whose greatest accomplishment in life is apparently disrupting a website. On that note I would suggest that the three of us return to ignoring this idiotic pest. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:30, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

My attempt at levity has been misunderstood and I apologies for the confusion. Please return to your regularly scheduled drudgery! :) ElKevbo (talk) 21:37, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

No big. Have a good one!--Tznkai (talk) 23:05, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of passages

Hi there,

I have added a passage at the English and the German Wikipedia Doctor of Business Administration article. I just saw that you deleted them. May I ask what exactly is the reason for qualifying them as spam passages or span references?

Here is what I did:

(1) In the German version of the article I corrected a wrong number. Instead of "100 DBA programs" (current version) there are more than 220. I cited the reference so that everyone can check this number. The current information is simply wrong.

(2) In the English and the German version I added the proliferation of the DBA programs worldwide: 38% Europe, 31% Asia/Pacific, 21% North America, 8% Africa, and 2% Latin America. Again I added the reference. Isn't that an interesting information?

I would be happy if you could let me know what exactly is wrong with this content and with the reference - also in comparison with the other links cited in the Wiki-articles.

Thank you very much Tomjoad2010 (talk) 00:57, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

It looks like you've been slowly going to several articles and adding links to the same webpages to all of them. That is very suspicious and the kind of activity typically done by spammers. You're certainly welcome to seek a third opinion; other editors may see this differently!

In any case, I think your edits are welcome but please find a better source. ElKevbo (talk) 02:00, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you again. Overall, I try to provide content. If the link is the best link that you can find for more in-depth information on a topic then I publish it. Most of the time I try not just to publish a link but to provide valuable content and use the link as a reference. If here is any doubt let me know.

In case of the Doctor of Business Administration there are only two references. The website dbastudies is already cited in both the German and the English article. It is run by an ex DBA student and it's a serious website with good information in my opinion. The website, however, only covers about 100 DBA programs - therefore their entry in the German wikipdia article ("there are about 100 DBA programs worldwide").

The other reference - the one that I wanted to add - is dba-compass.com. It is run by a PhD in Management student and lists over 220 DBA programs. Its search engine also allows for a summary of the geographical dispersion of DBA programs - hence my paragraph on that.

Anyway, I won't post it again cause I don't want to get blocked - even though I hardly understad what the problem is (provided that the reference and conte is serious). I fully support Wikipedia's policies and don't want to create a different impression. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomjoad2010 (talk • contribs) 16:50, October 23, 2012‎

I understand your frustration and I really appreciate your patience and willingness to work to understand things here!

The central issue here is that we try our very best to only include information in articles that is supported by really good references. I'm afraid that websites whose primary claim of quality is that they are run by students probably don't meet our standards. Here would be a good place to go if you'd like some additional opinions; please let me know if you'd like to post a message there and need help! (Normally, we would have a discussion in the Talk pages of the specific articles but I am skeptical that there are many people watching these particular articles so I don't think you'd get any responses to questions there.) ElKevbo (talk) 17:09, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, I have to admit that I get your point. The reference needs to proove its quality. With an article from the Financial Times we have that proove. With just another website not really. Of course the question immediately comes up: Why then can a website such as dbastudies be used as a reference? But maybe this was just overlooked. Anyway, I got your point and I would like to thank you for your explanation, patience, and also for your comfortable way of communicating. Thanks a lot and my next reference in Wikipedia will be more grounded and reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomjoad2010 (talk • contribs) 22:45, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Mascots

Hi, you left a note on my talk page about a series of links to Mascots. I don't see the links as 'strange', or as 'spam'. The infoboxes for universities and colleges have a space for mascots. In a number of cases, there was no mascot listed in the infobox, while in others a mascot was listed, but without any ref/link. A number of Canadian universities have mascots, which were manufactured by Sugar's mascots and costumes in Toronto, Ontario, Canada (www.sugarsmascotcostumes.com). The links are to .jpg of the University/College mascots in the firm's online gallery or to a list of mascots the firm created. I understand that the site, which I'm not affiliated with, also has media announcements when the mascots were initially rolled out and stories of the development of some of the mascots. The firm also produces mascots for US universities & colleges, corporate, sport team mascots, BTW. I came across the site a few years ago while writing about the mascot of the Canadian university I graduated from for my alumni journal. Cheers Victoriaedwards (talk) 00:54, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Neumont University

You seem to be continuing the spamming of Neumont University where 69.27.21.250 left off previously before being banned. I'll be watching your edits. Gratans (talk) 04:58, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Sigh. If you would spend even a few minutes reading my userpage or my lengthy history of contributions here then you'd know that I'm not a Nuemont employee or even associated with it. It would also be swell if you'd stop accusing others of "spamming" when they are simply editing an article. You don't control that article and I strongly advise you to cease edit warring and instead work with other editors in Talk. ElKevbo (talk) 05:38, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Critical

Dear Dr. Guidry I am writing to tell you that I am not self promoting on wiki. I am an established scholar in this field. You an google me or if you want I can have the top two critical pedagogues in the country. Henry Giroux and Peter McLaren verify this information. Can you please respond and allow me to sort this out with you. I tried to email you at your university.

Best Sheila Macrine, professor at Umass Dartmouth.

http://searchworks.stanford.edu/view/8234898 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.246.140.246 (talk) 04:20, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for not replying sooner; I am no longer at Indiana University but am now at the University of Delaware.

If you haven't already done so, you might want to take a look at our conflict of interest guidelines. They're a bit broader than how conflict of interest is perceived in other contexts. In particular, they include areas where contributors may have enough personal involvement that they could be perceived as advancing a personal interest or agenda; I hope you can see how others could view adding your own research to an article in that light! Some of that comes from the fact that Wikipedia editors are essentially groups of anonymous strangers so we can't really just take someone's word on face value but insist on verifiable evidence presented in a neutral manner.

I know that it can seem a little odd that this may have the effect of precluding experts from editing articles about the very topic on which they have the most expertise! The best way to negotiate it is usually to edit the Talk page of the article in question to make helpful suggestions. That helps reduce possible bias or the appearance of bias on the part of editors who may have something to gain by editing an article to read in a particular way.

I hope this helps! Please feel free to reply here or make suggestions in the article's Talk page if you need help or have further questions! ElKevbo (talk) 16:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)