User talk:ElKevbo/Archive 21

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.

I hope you come back.

You fill (ahem) a much-needed gap in the literature. E Eng 03:02, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Washburn University logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Washburn University logo.png. 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. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 03:30, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, ElKevbo. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great idea to take a break ElKevbo. If you return, hope you would have learned not to censure factual information as you did pertaining to Claremont Graduate University and the Teacher Education program. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.25.211.33 (talk) 01:29, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question

ElKevbo, welcome back! I have a question about a user you recently dealt with... do you know how this user would have discovered me? I'ver never dealt with the user but after he got blocked from promoting Everglades University, I received an email asking what he should do... Thanks, Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 05:25, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I have no idea. I think the only contact I've ever had was reverting one of his or her edits at that article. No talk page interaction or anything. Sorry! ElKevbo (talk) 17:17, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm... no worries! I'm just trying to figure out how out of thousands of users he found me. lol Thanks for the reply! Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 17:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question About Heartland Baptist Bible College Edit Revert

Hello, there. I appreciate your vigilance to keep Wikipedia a reputable source for information. I read it often, but I'm entirely new to contributing. I want to explain that I was not trying to make a haphazard edit to the Heartland Baptist Bible College page. I honestly was not meaning to be disruptive. I'm new and just trying to clean and help pages in my sphere of knowledge. Here was my reasoning behind the edits...

Because Heartland Baptist Bible College is intended to be a practical, ministry training institution, the repeated reference to "unaccredited" seems purposed by someone who is trying to point out a negative about the school. In fact, I looked at the history and found that the exact wording in the opening paragraph was written by someone who wrote other derogatory things about the school that were removed. For clarity, the college's accreditation status is discussed later in the post. To be clear--I'm not suggesting the college's accreditation status be scrubbed from the page--at all. Even if accreditation status remains in the first paragraph, it seems reasonable to begin with the college's intention of providing practical training for ministers. This is not an effort to hide accreditation status--simply to be fair to the type of college discussed. The college is not trying to "act" accredited. The later post already says the institution is not seeking accreditation. Maybe the opening paragraph could be revised to explain what the institution's purpose is--rather than repeating what it cannot do. That just seems like "good faith" description of the institution. R495364r (talk) 22:01, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Student Financial Aid in the United States

The information was somewhat poorly sourced and cited and was removed in favor of linking to much more encyclopedic wikipedia entries on each subtopic, with a brief summary for each. Just trying to improve the entry.WonLove (talk) 17:41, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's poorly sourced and in desperate need of further editing but I glanced at some of the other articles that were linked to and they didn't seem to have the intended or necessary information. It seems like keeping what is there is the lesser of two evils.

The whole article needs a ton of work from some folks who really know the topic. It'd be great if we could get some financial aid experts (NASFAA folks, maybe?) to contribute. ElKevbo (talk) 18:19, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

University of Notre Dame

Hi! Thanks for pointing out the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education - I didn't know such a thing existed! Thanks! Beta7 (talk) 02:03, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. The source was already in the article but it was placed after the following sentence instead of the sentence in question. I moved the reference so it's more clear. ElKevbo (talk) 02:07, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the claim for 120k alumni - there is no relevant source that I could find. The source later in the article did not speak to the claim of 120k. Beta7 (talk) 02:25, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ACICS Accreditation Question

If the Department of Education stripped ACICS of its accrediting authority, what is the current accreditation status of ACICS schools? The DOE letter states that they are "provisionally certified" and hold "recognized accreditation". Other schools, i.e. Pacific States University, actually claim to be still "fully accredited" during the 18 month grace period. Bcf1291 (talk) 00:27, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think that we need to figure out a common approach to this across all of the affected articles. I'll start a discussion here. ElKevbo (talk) 13:20, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please Specify and Help

Could you please specify where I have been disruptively editing? I have added facts to articles. Disruptive editing is also not vandalism according to Wikipedia. I have been changing my friends (Mr.Election) page, but always with his permission. Please help me be the best editor I can be. Not-a-parted-haired-libertarian (talk) 11:43, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) This was obvious vandalism and had a misleading edit summary. One more and you will be blocked. And don't troll editors who revert your vandalism, such as ElKevbo. I will warn you on your page as well, but I realize warnings don't stay long there. Bishonen | talk 12:37, 20 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Nomination of List of YouTubers for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of YouTubers 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/List of YouTubers (2nd nomination) 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 notice from the top of the article. *thing goes (talk) 20:43, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Text book prices (Oink Oink Awards website)

Hi there ElKevbo,

This is in connection with the Oink Oink Awards website. The addition to the textbook article was not made by the person behind Oink Oink Awards so I am not following your point. I was not the person that added it originally, but Pual Joseph sends out a email broadcast to professors in the field. Yet, I too feel it merits entry as the empirical evidence does show the site resulted in a reduction by 15% of the highest priced textbooks in the field Geotechnical engineering. Regardless of any obvious thoughts of propaganda (?) the fact remains that this is the first time in the 30 years of teaching geotechnical engineering that the prices of these books has dropped. Per his latest email broadcast the author of the site has even been threatened with legal action by publishers. For these two reasons (factual reduction in prices and taken as a serious threat by the publishing industry), it is of "historical" importance in any objective discussion of textbooks. If you feel, you would like to reword it appropriately, please do so.

Efischer80 (talk) 12:23, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If it's genuinely important enough to include in an encyclopedia then surely you can provide independent sources attesting to that. ElKevbo (talk) 15:26, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stop calling other editors Shirley. E Eng 19:04, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The independent "source" is Amazon's prices. You can check and see that the prices reduced by 15%. If this does not qualify as an "independent source," I am not sure what you mean by the term. I know you are very proud of your PhD, but I also am a PhD and with over 30 years experience myself so I do think I can discuss the meaning of "independent source" with you, or at least so I hope. Efischer80 (talk) 20:02, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, we need reliable, independent sources discussing the importance of the website you are asserting is important enough to insert into an encyclopedia. That's how we determine that a subject is important enough to include an article. ElKevbo (talk) 20:36, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Efischer, I've looked at the content in question and it's far from anything that would ever be included in the textbooks article. In addition to the links ElKevbo gives, you might want to review WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Neither requires a PhD. E Eng 21:53, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

for dealing with linkspam by Klarky15. James (^talk/_contribs) 08:46, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CU confirmed sock

This edit summary was in reference to RickDavis, who is a CU confirmed sock. I reverted to the edit before he started, which since you simply reverted him, shouldn't have changed anything you did. Sorry for the crossed communications. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:24, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Thanks for the quick reply! ElKevbo (talk) 02:24, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We actually posted on each others talk at the same time! I'm going to revert again, but will make it clear in the edit summary who I was referring to. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:26, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Skandera Trombley

Thanks for your attention to this article. There are over a dozen SPAs who have edited it to provide glowing information on the subject: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]. This editing dates back seven years and the number of SPAs multiplies daily. Have you considered requesting a sockpuppet investigation? They may not all be sockpuppets, but they certainly are working assiduously to advance the reputation of the subject of the article. A sockpuppet investigation may be more effective than a query at WP:BLPN. Just a thought. 32.218.39.123 (talk) 06:50, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea; thanks! I've opened an SPI case. ElKevbo (talk) 15:47, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]