User talk:ElKevbo/Archive 9

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.

John Edward photo

Jun 12, 2008 Thunder8 added an image of John Edwards to the people section of the NC State article. I have attempted to remove this image, along with others. My objection to the image is that John Edwards does not meet the criteria for significance as suggested in the article. The article as written on Sept 1, 2008 says “A number of NC State alumni and faculty have made significant contributions in the fields of government, military, science, academia, business, arts, and athletics, among others.” The next sentence reads “John Edwards, former senator and two time presidential candidate, and James B. Hunt Jr., 4-term Governor of North Carolina, are among the most notable alumni with involvement in politics.” John Edwards 6 year term as a U.S. Senator and failed presidential runs along with his failed bid for the vice presidency on the Democratic ticket with John Kerry certainly gained him notoriety. However, as events occur to elevate an individual in terms of their notability (and importantly with regard to their “contributions”), events may also contribute to lessoning and even reversing that notability. At this point in time John Edwards’s notability is certain, but not as a politician. I would argue that John Edwards is a pop culture figure (i.e. scandalized national politician). Any claim to significance was largely dependent on his ability to gain national office (elected or appointed), a task at which he has consistently failed. Governor James Hunt is a much more “significant” political figure having reshaped the office of governor in the state of North Carolina. I would argue for his picture to appear on this page. The publication of John Edwards’s picture is simply a nod to a popular obsession with scandal. This article was created in August of 2002; the content I am objecting to was just 70 odd days prior to my first edit. --jk1lee (talk) 1:16, 2 September 2008

I recommend taking the discussion to the article's Talk page for further input and discussion. --ElKevbo (talk) 02:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Executive Education and Professional Development

Hi ElKevbo. Could you please elaborate on why you are deleting all of my internal links? In your talk, it said you deleted my external links because they were not directly related to the article. On Adult Education External Links, there are plenty of schools, colleges, universities, etc... that have their external links listed. Could you please tell me why these places get to list their external links and I cannot? The same thing is happening in the "see also" sections of Lifelong Learning listing University of the Third Age,Higher Education, and Higher education in the United States. I look forward to your elaboration. Jmeilleur (talk) 17:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I deleted your external links. If I accidentally deleted internal links (and I may have deleted a few intentionally) then I apologize.

I also assert that many of the "See also" and "External links" sections of many of those articles are desperately in need of cleaning up and trimming. --ElKevbo (talk) 18:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Professional Development

Hello Elkevbo,

Thank you for your working in maintaining Wikipedia. I wanted to let you know there was know mal intent, nor promotional intent with the content added. Honestly, I am not interested in promoting a project. I've asked administrators to to remove all references in the history to NPDCI is possible, please do so. I'm much more interested in the public having access to quality information.

I'm also asking persons editing the page in the last week for their insight in making a solid contribution to Wikipedia on this topic and am very interested in your insight/recommendation.

The history of the contribution goes like this: I maintain a network listserv (not a group or organization, but an open network) of 1,030 professional development providers representing well over 100,000 early childhood educators in the field. After a recent national conference many persons on the listserv were interested in improving Wikipedia's definition of "Professional Development". This is where our method (pre-vetting) may have gone awry.

In an effort to make a solid contribution, we called for nominees and had 40 persons end up participating in a pre-Wikipedia sandbox representing a range of education, experience and expertise across the country (including persons with publications on professional development running into the thousands). Over the course of 2 months, together we created an open, uncopyrighted, well-vetted, synthesized joint definition of professional development elaborating on what Wikipedia had in place. We then ran it through a variety of other listservs for vetting. Last week we made a contribution to Wikipedia. Unfortunately that was perceived as spam and self-promotion. I definitely can see how this could have been perceived as promoting our organization. The flip side is if it were posted by Bob2008 there would have be no reference to the effort that went into the contribution. The contribution repeatedly coming down in the last few days has very much confused and frustrated a loose-nit network of individuals with no real intent but expanding an existing definition that needed expanding.

I read through the reads you and others recommended in editing our posts. These folks and I really want to operate within bounds. Do you have any recommendations on relaying the good work contributed by so many knowledgeable, well-meaning persons to the public via Wikipedia? For example, should we abandon all prior month's efforts and steer folks directly to Wikipedia for edits? Other ideas/suggestions/recommendations. Thanks again for your insight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathan d green (talk • contribs) 15:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It's hard to say without knowing exactly what article(s) you are discussing. Can you place the article(s) in a sandbox here in Wikipedia so we can all take a look at it? That (development of an article in a sandbox) is not an uncommon approach here, particularly when there are some outstanding questions about notability or sourcing. --ElKevbo (talk) 15:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: level 1 warning

I'm using Huggle for vandalism, so when I hit the Q button to rollback the vandalism while warning the user, the software simply looks for the current highest level of the vandalism template that's been placed on the user's talk page, instead of all vandalism templates. The software didn't pay attention to the removal of content templates, so it started with the level one warning. Miquonranger03 (talk) 05:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I'll add that my list of reasons why I don't use automated software to "communicate" with others. --ElKevbo (talk) 14:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Selective

(From my talk) User:Politizer points out there are several different indices, standards, and organizations promulgating rankings and other college information, each employing different definitions and metrics to classify institutions. Thus, to assert that Kenyon or any other college is "selective" necessarily implies either an overborad, generic definition common to the vast majority of higher education institutions (as you suggest) or a classification with the thinnest veneer of reliability based upon sources with divergent and incompatible definitions (US News, Barrons, Carnegie, NSF, etc) but nevertheless intended to connote eliteness. I believe that if the word is intended as the definition you propose, it is redundant as indeed the vast majority of institutions are "selective" and indeed the vast majority of even the most "selective" institutions make no mention of this in the lead of their articles. The term is entirely appropriate within a section based upon admissions information and academics, but to state it in the first sentence of the lead gives it undue weight. That Kenyon or any other college is a liberal arts institution, located in this city, founded in such and such year, and is or is not publicly owned are important, specific, and uncontroversial assertions. Uncritically describing it as "selective" in the lead is unspecific at best and boosterism at worst. Thus, it shouldn't be included at all in the lead. Madcoverboy (talk) 21:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Please (a) take the discussion to WP:UNI where many others interested in the same topic can more easily discuss it and (b) remember that our standard here is verifiability, not truth. --ElKevbo (talk) 22:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

You are being irresponsible

"Public Ivy" is not a term that has any kind of widespread acceptance. A couple of authors have used it to sell books and a few universities (and their students/staff) have latched onto it to try to pump themselves up. It is debatably okay to include in university articles "so and so listed the university as a Public Ivy". It is 100% not okay to use the term "public Ivy" as though it is a fact that Public Ivies even exist.

Until you actually address my complaint, you have no business reverting any of my edits. Threatening me with blocks is way over the line.

Cite needed (talk) 01:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a well-cited fact. Our standard here is verifiability, not truth. You're free to debate the merits of including the information but to remove it simply because you don't like it is unacceptable (I, and most of my fellow scholars of higher education, detest the US News & World Report rankings but that doesn't give me license to simply remove them from articles). I recommend taking this to Talk pages of the articles in question or perhaps that of the appropriate Wikiproject. --ElKevbo (talk) 02:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I am actually the one campaigning for verifiability. How do you verify that a university is a Public Ivy? Check one of those Public Ivy books or ask the Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, I suppose you'd say. To which I'd reply, when and how did those authors or the JBHE gain the authority to make such proclamations? The answer is that they didn't, they're just offering their opinion. Neither the authors nor the JBHE are revered to the extent that their opinions are treated as synonymous with fact.

The US News rankings are a great example of how to properly reference opinions in Wikipedia. Does the Princeton article (or whoever is #1 these days) say "Princeton is the number one university in the United States"? Of course not. That's only the opinion of US News, so we cite the source when referencing the ranking. Furthermore the ranking only even worth including in the article because everybody pays attention to them, including prospective students, current students, the universities themselves, employers, etc. Who pays attention to lists of Public Ivies? I've not seen any evidence that it is a term that enjoys anything resembling widespread acceptance. It's a very hard claim to justify that a public university is equivalent to the schools of the Ivy League, so it's quite understandble that it hasn't caught on.

So as you can see I have two objections to all of these articles proclaiming that "XX is a Public Ivy" in their leads. One is that the Public Ivy business is not even worth including because nobody really cares, but since that's a matter of opinion I don't mind if it appears down in the article text somewhere with the opinion-offerers included in the text, not as a hidden reference. But there is no question that opinions asserted as facts have no place in the lead of these articles. I would appreciate you not treating me as a vandal for improving the verifiability of these articles, and an apology for giving me, a peaceful editor, a vandal warning wouldn't hurt.

Cite needed (talk) 06:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Moll and his co-authors are the only ones that categorize institutions using that term. Qualifying it every time with some phrase such as "According to..." is simply unnecessary.

I don't know why the hell you're making such a big deal over this. If you think the info should be removed, restated, or moved, make your case in the appropriate Talk pages and discuss the edits with other editors. Continuing to outright delete information simply because you don't like it is unacceptable. --ElKevbo (talk) 12:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 25 and September 8, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 35	25 August 2008	About the Signpost

WikiWorld: "George P. Burdell"	News and notes: Arbitrator resigns, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Dispatches: Interview with Mav
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 36	8 September 2008	About the Signpost

Wikimedia UK disbands, but may form again	WikiWorld: "Helicopter parent"
News and notes: Wikipedian dies, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Featured topics	Dispatches: Style guide and policy changes, August
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 21:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Villanova University

As requested, comments have been added to the talk page. Your comments would be appreciated. Thanks. Truthanado (talk) 00:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Your edit to UCSD

You deleted a line from the UCSD article that said:

A "Public Ivy", UCSD consistently ranks in the top ten list of best public universities.

The Public Ivy article validates that UCSD is considered an Public Ivy according to Greene's guide. On the Academic Ranking of World Universities page, you can see that UCSD has been rated either 13th or 14th in their yearly ranking since Jiao Tong began ranking schools in 2003. If you look at the ARWU, you'll see that Harvard, Stanford, Cal Tech, MIT, Princeton, Yale, Columbia, Cornell, Oxford, Cambridge, and the University of Chicago all place ahead of UCSD in every year. Take out those 11 private institutions and UCSD ranks 2nd or 3rd best public university every year.

Since the Oxford article lead contains the sentence "Academically, Oxford is consistently ranked in the world's top 10 universities" and uses the AWRU as its source, I think it is reasonable for UCSD's article to state its place in the hierarchy.

The reason I'm pointing this out is not to be argumentative. It is to make the point that sometimes a sentence that seems like bragging or puffery is really an accurate portrayal. I didn't know how highly UCSD ranked until I read the sentence and sought to see if it was true. And it turns out to be true -- a stunning fact I didn't know before. I knew UCSD was a good school. But it is actually an exceptional university on par with the best in the world. That seems like an important fact for people to know if they are researching UCSD in Wikipedia. It seems like an important fact to see in the lead.

Vantelimus (talk) 07:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Why would you assume that I removed the sentence because it's "bragging or puffery" ? I removed it because it was unsourced. Add a footnote explaining the above, with sources, and I'm okay with it in the lead of this article. --ElKevbo (talk) 11:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't mean to attribute the wrong motives to you. Your mention of Madcoverboy got me thinking in the wrong direction. FWIW, I changed the sentence to reference the ARWU to validate the claim. I don't know why, but someone else said they agreed with you and made the sentence vague and unreferenced. Wikipedia is a lot like playing whack-a-mole, isn't it? Vantelimus (talk) 20:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Sometimes you whack the moles and sometimes you get whacked. :) --ElKevbo (talk) 21:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know my eyesight was that bad! Thanks for the barnstar ;) Madcoverboy (talk) 22:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

USNA

Don't modify the USNA page unless you know what you're talking about.

USNA Alumni, the Grayghost01 (talk) 02:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Please read our policy on ownership. In addition, please keep in mind that you don't know the background or experiences of other editors. --ElKevbo (talk) 02:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Please quit deleting historical, accurate and true information from the USNA article. You are simply being annoying for annoying sake, therefore violating several paradigms of WIKI. Again, you are making deletions without cause, and you truly are uninformed, and thereby taking away from the merit of the article. You don't own this article, so either be helpful, or edit somewhere else.Grayghost01 (talk) 03:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I seriously recommend you review our core policies, including our policy regarding personal attacks. This is a community of editors and your needless antagonism and hostility are harmful to your cause and the community. --ElKevbo (talk) 04:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Quit attacking me. I have provided a USNA-sponsered link for parents which gives a definition for Goat Coart. Goat Court is named for its purpose as a Goat Coart. Ample verification is made by the USNA page cited. If need be, I'll break out my own personal Lucky Bag and cite page from there as well. You are over-reacting, and there is WIKI guidance on folks cruising articles stamping "citation" tags in excess. I sincerely hope you cool off.Grayghost01 (talk) 04:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. In the future, please provide references for material as you add or when requested. --ElKevbo (talk) 04:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Quackwatch

I reverted your edit, because you made a major change with a minor tag and no edit summary. not a comment on the act (which we can discuss), just on the procedure. --Ludwigs2 20:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Removing one misplaced comma is a "major change" ??? --ElKevbo (talk) 23:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry 'bout that "bit of craziness". The above user has been blocked for a number of reasons. The edit summary used in reverting your minor change was quite incivil and was a part of the "tipping point" for the block. The quackwatch page has seen more than its share of edit warring and "craziness" and I'm sorry that you got caught up in the mess. Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 00:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note! I'm going to wander back over to my own cell in the asylum; I've got plenty of crazies in my own wing to deal with! :) --ElKevbo (talk) 00:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 15, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 37	15 September 2008	About the Signpost

Wikiquote checkuser found to be sockpuppeteer	WikiWorld: "Ubbi dubbi"
News and notes: Wikis Takes Manhattan, milestones	Dispatches: Interview with Ruhrfisch, master of Peer review
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 05:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Reliability of "Diploma DeMille" article

This article (at the Oliver DeMille article) was written by Richard Stout, an attorney in Idaho, in response to a charter school setting itself up based on DeMille's philosophies. It was an unsolicited article written for the Idaho State Department of Education with the aim of educating them on the "Thomas Jefferson Education" concepts and giving the author's opinion on DeMille's claims and background. Someone else posted the article at www.idaholeadershipacademy.org as part of the movement to shut the charter school down, so it's not self-published. That's pretty much all I know about its origins. I don't know Stout, don't live in Idaho, wasn't involved with that charter school debate, etc. It seems like a reliable source. I don't believe anything I added to DeMille's article based on Diploma DeMille is libelous or otherwise a violation of WP:BLA. --TrustTruth (talk) 22:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I wasn't particularly targeting what you may have added to that article but the entire article as needing some impartial eyes. --ElKevbo (talk) 01:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Plagiarism detection

I removed a bunch of commercial links, but the free ones and the academic info and links (including the UK press release link under Literature and the .edu pages) I wasn't sure about. It's about the last dozen of edits that have provided the most additions and rewrites. You do need another addition to your watch page, right? Flowanda | Talk 20:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Damnit, Flowanda. I breezed through that article a day or two ago and was trying to ignore it... :)

Predictably, I think all of the external links in the article body need to be nuked per WP:NOT and WP:EL. If any of the programs mentioned in the article have Wikipedia articles then they could be added to either a "See also" section or to a category. --ElKevbo (talk) 20:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

NAICU spam

I noticed the NAICU spam included various articles as well and thought it spam as well. NAICU is basically a lobbying organization and the UCAN network is just a compilation of readily-available common data set information. It seems your revision on Villanova was reverted. I don't exactly have the social capital or time to lead any consensus formation process to head this off at the pass, but what venue should we find to find a general consensus on this issue in addition to (the relatively anemic) WP:UNI? Madcoverboy (talk) 00:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be some reasonable discussion in the article's Talk page. Let's see where that goes; I'm still optimistic. --ElKevbo (talk) 01:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Brandeis

I'm not going to revert your recent edit as the info you removed is unsourced but I disagree with your stated rationale for removing the information. It's short-sighted and narrow to think that only university-approved activities or groups are the proper subject for an article about the institution and its student life. I understand that we have to draw a line somewhere but I think you've drawn the line too close to the institution in this instance. --ElKevbo (talk) 16:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but where DOES one draw the line? Fraternities at Brandeis exist purely off-campus and have no recognition by the university. If a bunch of students get together and go out to dinner, does that constitute a "Brandeis Dining Club?" Don't forget, the article is about "Brandeis University" which is an institution with defined parameters. It's not an article about "things that Brandeis students do off-campus."Alight (talk) 03:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The institution doesn't get to define the parameters of what is and is not associated with it. It might like to think that it does but that's pure hogwash and wishful thinking.

As far as deciding where to draw the line: We decide on the merits of the particular case. If one can persuasively argue that an unapproved organization has a strong tie to the university then it should be included. And the argument in this case - the university won't let students but they do it anyway - seems to be prima facie persuasive.

Don't forget that what we know as modern fraternities began as largely unapproved student organizations about 150 years ago. And your particular example is a bit amusing as there are several very prestigious campuses where "dining clubs" formed and governed by students and lacking official recognition by and support from the university are the primary social organizations. And those clubs are definitely something that should be included in those articles (I believe they are; will check later). --ElKevbo (talk) 04:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but don't forget we are not talking about a majority of the students here (or even close to it). We are talking about a few dozen students (out of thousands) who get together off campus and call themselves a "fraternity." I would say that falls well below any reasonable "materiality threshold" for inclusion about in a "Brandeis University" article, which again is an article about a SPECIFIC INSTITUTION.Alight (talk) 14:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

List of YouTube celebrities‎

Hi.

I have proposed List of YouTube celebrities and the separate pages for "celebrities" be moved to "YouTube phenomena". You can leave your thoughts about this here.

Regards, TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 18:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 17, 2008 and before.

Because the Signpost hasn't been sent in a while, to save space, I've condensed all seven issues that were not sent into this archive. Only the three issues from November are below.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 42	8 November 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor
News and notes: The Price is Right, milestones	Dispatches: Halloween Main Page contest generates new article content
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 43	10 November 2008	About the Signpost

Fundraiser opens: Over $500,000 raised in first week	ArbCom elections: Nominations open
Book review: How Wikipedia Works	MediaWiki search engine improved
Four Board resolutions, including financials, approved	News and notes: Vietnamese Wiki Day
Dispatches: Historic election proves groundbreaking on the Main Page	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 44	17 November 2008	About the Signpost

Lawsuit briefly shuts down Wikipedia.de	GFDL 1.3 released, will allow Wikimedia migration to Creative Commons license
Wikimedia Events Roundup	News and notes: Fundraiser, List Summary Service, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 10:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Turnitin

Deleting the "criticism" section breaks the topic since that's what the "response" section addresses. (And it's fairly trivial to find sources for at least some of the criticism). Tedickey (talk) 01:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Then I look forward to you finding and adding those sources! :) --ElKevbo (talk) 02:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Endowment for University of Western Ontario

Don't accuse me of reverting blindly. I reverted the endowment and link previously for year 2007. This is completely different than keeping the updated link for 2008 but changing it back to the old $266.6million. 144.214.156.18 (talk) 08:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

You labeled a legitimate and useful reference a "fake link"; it's clear that you didn't even check to see if it was real (it is) or had useful information (it does). You made a mistake; learn and move on. --ElKevbo (talk) 14:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Your block request

I have not erased or reverted your edits without comments. I have stated why image is in use time and time again. You need to check the IFD before resuming further. Tarysky (talk) 01:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I gave him a few warnings about removing image maintenance templates, but that has largely stopped. I am still concerned about his edit-warring to retain inappropriate non-free content, but I don't think a block is warranted at this point. Thanks for your help. (ESkog)^(Talk) 03:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)