User talk:ElKevbo/Archive 16

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.

ElKevbo, could you please point out to me any article that has a citation for including "flagship" in the type? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scubo99 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but that's not how it works. Someone has questioned the assertion so if you - or anyone else - wants it to remain in the article then sufficient evidence must be provided. On the face of it, it's not a far-fetched thing to question as flagship status is not always as official or universally recognized as some people assume, especially for states with several large universities or competing systems. Most importantly, if it's true then it should be trivial to find a reliable source supporting it, right? ElKevbo (talk) 18:28, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I actually came here to discuss the flagship status for the University of Kansas when I saw this discussion. I noticed the USA Today article cited by Scubo99 for Kansas State being a flagship also lists the University of Kansas as a flagship. So if that is going to be accepted as a definitive source, then both universities should be listed as flagships, though this would contradict Kansas State's president saying in an article that the University of Kansas is the flagship. Either way, I've included information in the relevant section (including a link to that other article) on the KU talk page. And thanks for being an editor, ElKevbo. Jtmartin (talk) 03:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Be sure to include the reference in the article, too, if you haven't already done so and let me know if you need any help! ElKevbo (talk) 22:49, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I think I got it properly cited on the Kansas page. I'll leave the discussion on Kansas State's status to the common consensus. Jtmartin (talk) 22:45, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please take another look at the Kansas State talk page? There is another citation that needs checked. Thanks for being an arbiter on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scubo99 (talk • contribs) 16:44, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ElKevbo - thanks for your comment about my Princeton Review edit. I agree with you, and was wondering if you can help me out on this - I wanted to remove a misleading reference to the revenues of Princeton Review's former parent, but I couldn't figure out how to remove a single reference. That's why I deleted the whole list, and I thought it was OK since most of the links were dead anyway. Do you have any suggestions, or perhaps you can remove the reference? It is the first one on the list. Thanks for any help.DeborahChopping (talk) 14:33, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Typically, information about references is written right next to the fact for which they are a reference and the "References" section just has a little bit of Wikipedia code that tells the software to display all of the references there. So try editing the specific section where the fact is described and you'll probably see the reference there. ElKevbo (talk) 18:38, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ElKevbo, thanks for the invitation to discuss whether the Harvard-Yale Regatta is of sufficient importance to include in the introductory section of the Yale University wiki page. As I look around at the pages of other colleges in general and Ivy League universities in particular, I observe that most introductory sections do not include anything more than a passing reference to the school's sports teams, mentioning at most the team's nickname and conference affiliation or NCAA division. The history of the Harvard-Yale Regatta would seem to be a far more granular level of detail than this, more appropriate for a subsection on athletics specifically. You might note that the one exception to my observation about introductory sections is the one for Harvard University, which does go into some detail about the rivalry with Yale. I assume that all this useless minutiae about a sports rivalry was contributed by Wikipedia posters associated with Yale. Nothing is more important to the self-image and self-esteem of Yale alumni than their indirect association with Harvard. That's why I assumed somebody from Yale added the bit about the Harvard-Yale Regatta. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.42.152.64 (talk • contribs) 15:42, December 15, 2012‎

That the university is involved in the oldest intercollegiate athletic competition in the country seems notable enough to include the lead. Substantial details would be inappropriate but a mention seems appropriate just as we would probably mention other notable first, oldest, largest, etc. ElKevbo (talk) 23:01, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia is not a venue for instruction manuals" you said. Could you tell me other reasons for the AFD? And what do you think about Doomsday rule? Thanks in advance. --Q5968661 (talk) 09:10, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I have no other reasons for nominating that article for deletion. And that other article should be deleted for the same reason. ElKevbo (talk) 17:48, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see! May I ask you a question: How or why do you know how to determine the day of the week? --Q5968661 (talk) 03:36, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't. But this is not where I would turn to learn how to do that or anything else. Encyclopedias aren't instruction manuals, how-to guides, or cook books of either the culinary or programmatic kind; they tell you about things by describing them in their cultural and historical contexts, not by providing step-by-step directions. ElKevbo (talk) 17:29, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the guidelines and am not sure how it might apply to my edits. If I cite an academic published source authored by myself, is that considered a conflict of interest? I have only cited my own work in the case where new information has become available through my own academic research, and that material has been peer reviewed and published by an academic publisher. I have also included several other recognized academic sources to strengthen the scholarship of the article's content. The edits are neutral and have no personal connection to me other than my own academic specialization in the field. I am still learning about the Wikipedia ways, and I thank you for the point about the talk page of which I wasn't aware. I shall make use of that.Daniel Draney (talk) 20:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Kevin! On Nov 30th, you deleted the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Garst Here were the reasons: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kim_Garst

I believe that this page should be republished based on Wikipedia's guidelines. You said that "The 2 award wins (minor awards) and the Forbes Top 50 Social Media Influencers show an emerging notability but not enough yet to pass WP:GNG." Can you please explain why this is a fact based in Wikipedia guidelines rather than an opinion? I feel the error may have been on my part -- for not presenting the information correctly, rather than the fact that this individual is not notable. In the world of social media, Kim Garst is among the most well-recognized names in the business. I'd like to learn how I can "show" this in a way that meets Wikipedia's guidelines.

Christineokelly (talk) 22:32, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have made a mistake; I had nothing to do with that AfD. Nor can I delete articles as I'm not an administrator. ElKevbo (talk) 22:39, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the history, even the bot thought it was vandalism. Multiple RR edits from varying ip addresses??

Anyway, I think it is unnecessary and bulky. It also has a tendency to collect self-important people. As a result I moved it. I realize that this is only my opinion, but there should have been some discussion before unilaterally relocating months after the edit. Revmqo (talk) 19:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine if you disagree with the edit but it's disrespectful to label it vandalism on those grounds alone.

Related to the article content: Have you read the editor's comments in Talk? He or she makes an argument that the list collects more cruft as a stand-alone list since those are usually watched by fewer editors than main college and university articles. I don't have any numbers to support that claim and our colleague did not provide any but my experience leads me to believe that it's probably true. ElKevbo (talk) 19:20, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I help clean up the alumni lists of other colleges in New Jersey, and I found that separate alumni lists are undesireable unless there are hundreds of notable alumni. With standalone alumni lists, there may be less incidents of namechecking, but when non-notable names are added they are rarely removed. When alumni lists are integrated into the main article, you have a better chance of someone adding a non-notable name, but it's quickly removed.

As for the claim that Drew's list are group of "self-important people", I decided to do some research. Drew's list of alumni and faculty had 54, which is not out-of-line for regionally-known liberal arts college. Comparatively, NJIT has 57, Seton Hall around 160, while Rutgers and Princeton have around 500. Of the 54, 49 had their own Wiki page, and 5 did not. Of the 5 that did not, I removed 2 that weren't really notable -- Mayra Rivera Rivera and Susan Morrison. I will add references to the other 3 (Jospeh Blotner, Holly Bakke, George Kelsey), since names on a list without their own page are required to have a citation.

Of the 49 with their own page, I believe that at least 46 of them are notable. Keep in mind that a lot of names on the list are Methodist bishops, and bishops are major denominations are often considered notable. There are 3 that I put proposed deletion tags on, but it looks like the tags were removed, so I will have them submitted to AfD. 71.125.72.106 (talk) 15:15, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that you are trying to help, but what is your basis for "notable?" Susan Morrison is perhaps one of the most notable on the list. I realize that she doesn't have a Wiki page, but her accomplishments far outweigh many others on the list. As for my earlier comments of self-important people, I've endeavored to remove those who self promote on this article. Some, and by no means all, are simply college graduates.... nothing makes them notable. I still believe that having the list appear on the main article takes away from the content of the main article. Most of the names on the list contribute little to an understanding of "Drew University." I am willing to disagree, but let's have a real discussion about what make one notable in ref to Drew. Just having a wiki page isn't enough. Many simply don't meet the requirements of WP:People. Revmqo (talk) 22:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could one of you please copy this conversation to the Drew University Talk page and continue the conversation there? I don't it happening here but it would be better there where others who might be watching or interested in the article can see and participate. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 22:33, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just copied to Talk:Drew University. 71.251.33.239 (talk) 01:52, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't appreciate you're rude and aggressive attitude, and it is really quite unacceptable that you are STALKING me and my Wikipedia activity. It is entirely unacceptable. Please stop. =//= Johnny Squeaky 23:27, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributions are public knowledge; get over it.

And I'm still waiting for you to explain why removing unsourced information is vandalism. ElKevbo (talk) 23:37, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are a Stalker, and if you continue, I will make a formal complaint. Your edit record will confirm your behavior. Go away. =//= Johnny Squeaky 00:45, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to make a formal complaint; I will happily admit to briefly looking through your edit history to see what other innocuous or correct edits you have reverted by labeling them "vandalism" without the courtesy of a legitimate explanation or justification.

Speaking of correct edits that you've reverted by labeling them "vandalism" without a real explanation: When are you going to join the discussion at Talk: Cornell University to explain why removing an unsourced fact is vandalism? ElKevbo (talk) 00:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Madcoverboy (talk) 04:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I would welcome your comments on University of the Pacific (United States), regarding whether a post from the luminosity.com blog should be included under National rankings. I started the discussion on the article's Talk page, and you should be able to see the edits in the article history. Thanks. Logical Cowboy (talk) 21:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

USN&WR was bad enough. But really... is there nothing we can do to stop this tidal wave of bullshit? [1] EEng (talk) 11:54, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. Feel to remove it.

And drop by Template talk:Infobox US university ranking‎ to voice an opinion on how or if that template should be expanded. ElKevbo (talk) 04:19, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A proposal has been initiated on the Drew University talk page regarding how notable alumni, faculty, and presidents should be listed. Feel free to join the discussion. DavidinNJ (talk) 17:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Clemson University, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert Edwards (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thanks for creating this article. It's been tagged for notability. high schools are nearly always found to be notable but only if they have reliable sources. Could you please look it over and see if you can add sources? Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 09:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but you're mistaken: I didn't create that article. Nor do I have any particular interest in it or its subject. ElKevbo (talk) 12:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ElKevbo, I saw your note on Wikepedia about my recent updates to Central Oregon Community College Wikipedia page being well intended but malformed. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Central_Oregon_Community_College

Sorry about that, I'm not very familiar with editing Wikipedia content, I just know that some of the information listed about our college is outdated or incorrect and includes some broken links to an old version of our website.

What is the best approach to get that information updated? Here are a few of the main updates we would like to make:

Info box at top right: COCC was established in 1949 (not 1955 – only the COCC scholarship foundation was est. in 1955) Enrollment is now 18,339 (2011 – 2012) Reference should be our "Quick Facts" page: http://www.cocc.edu/About/COCC-Quick-Facts/

Programs and Degrees: We are not sure why Aviation is only program listed there – We offer many other programs and Aviation is not our main focus. We'd like to add something like this with a link to all programs:

"Central Oregon Community College offers a wide range of professional-technical programs, associate degrees, transfer areas and certificate programs. For a complete list of options please see COCC Academic Programs and Degree Options. http://www.cocc.edu/Degrees-Classes/Academic-Programs/ http://www.cocc.edu/Degrees-Classes/Degree-Options/

Several of the old reference links are dead. Here are the updates: Change COCC Foundation "http://foundation.cocc.edu/About+The+Foundation/default.aspx" to http://www.cocc.edu/Foundation/ Change History of COCC from "http://visitors.cocc.edu/About/Glance/default.aspx" to http://www.cocc.edu/About/COCC-Quick-Facts/ Change COCC Aviation from "http://aviation.cocc.edu/" to "http://www.cocc.edu/Aviation/"

Any help or tips you can provide to get these updates in place would be greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdonnell (talk • contribs) 00:04, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the infobox but I'm not sure what to do about the rest of the article. I agree that it's really weird to just include one academic program. I deleted it for now since I don't know what else to put there. I don't think that what you proposed above is appropriate as we don't refer and link to other websites like that. Is there a concise way to describe the breadth of the academic programs at the college? Try looking at some other articles to get some ideas and feel free to propose some new text in the article's Talk page. ElKevbo (talk) 02:36, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I read your request. I am willing to modify the page notice to remove stylistic and subjective elements (such as what to say in the edit summary) but I also believe it is absolutely necessary to instruct all editors to not say that it's in Atlanta.

At the talk page section User:Majoreditor said Talk:Emory_University#Location_of_Emory that "Emory is not located in "the city of Atlanta." This isn't a subjective matter; Emory's campus is located east of the city limits. The term metropolitan area includes both urban and suburban environments.'"

The postal address says "Atlanta, GA" so many members of the public mistakenly think it's in the city limits, when it's not.

WhisperToMe (talk) 00:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I modified the page notice to remove the editorial component. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:43, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should obtain consensus from other editors before using your administrative powers to create or enforce anything related to content in articles. If there is already such consensus in the Talk archives, please place a link in the edit notice. Otherwise, I respectfully suggest that the notice be deleted pending a discussion in the article's Talk page that leads to a clear consensus that such a heavy-handed approach is necessary. (In the spirit of compromise, I would be open to keeping the notice while such a discussion is opened and held.) ElKevbo (talk) 01:00, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best option is to make a talk page section asking if "there is a consensus" on this matter, just to confirm. Also I'll look and see if I discussed this on user pages (I remembered talking about this with other users too, but I don't see other pages in the talk page archives). The reason is because I considered the mentality of anonymous drive-by users. Many anonymous users make drive by edits and do not stop and read the talk pages and do not take the time to read tutorials/documents/etc. They are unaware of how things work on here, and if they erroneously believe that, for instance, Emory is in Atlanta based on a postal address, they will make the edit and walk away. It may seem heavy handed for a Wikipedian who is familiar with how things work and would be careful to wait for consensus before making an edit in an article that may be controversial, but from my experience using an edit summary is the only way one can reach an uninformed drive by anonymous editor. And such notices are used, especially when say an article makes the Main Page, to reach those drive by users.

I had been involved in similar discussions at Talk:ENSCO,_Inc. (resulting consensus is to say that it is physically in Annandale, Virginia but the postal address is at Falls Church, Virginia) and Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard/Archive_14#Using_maps_to_determine_locations, and I believe the prevailing sentiment is that the Wikipedia article in general states the "real" location of a place and that one can use U.S. Census Bureau maps to say so.

WhisperToMe (talk) 05:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's another discussion at an anon page at User_talk:98.192.57.38 - From http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:98.192.57.38&action=history, Majoreditor made the first post and I made subsequent ones WhisperToMe (talk) 05:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is not about this specific article or its content but your use of administrative tools to ensure your preferred content remains in the article. That is concerning because there doesn't seem to be much evidence that a blunt, administrator-only tool like an edit notice is at all necessary but by using such a tool non-admin editors are severely disadvantaged in even trying to address the issue since we have to ask for an administrator to intervene on our behalf.

Do you understand my concern? ElKevbo (talk) 15:22, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do understand your concern. If you want, I can explain this on the appropriate noticeboard. Perhaps what could be done is, for each time an edit notice is used in that manner, I can add "To discuss this issue, please click here" or something similar so that anonymous users can easily find where to discuss this. Also, I may through the edit summary of this article and document instances where anonymous users keep making these changes, showing that it's necessary to use these edit summaries. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:19, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just found that there was a talk page discussion at Talk:Emory_University#DeKalb. I'll post edit summary links at Talk:Emory_University#Location_of_Emory_university.2C_confirming WhisperToMe (talk) 18:30, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome; thanks! I'm really not trying to hound you or make this relatively insignificant issue into something bigger. I really am concerned mostly about the broader issues surrounding the use of an admin-only tool, especially how the decision is made and how non-admin editors are affected. ElKevbo (talk) 19:11, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin,

I come in peace.

This is in response to the speedy deletion of the entry Kim Garst: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_garst

I have poured through pages and pages of Wikipedia info and tried to go through the correct procedures and processes to publish a page that meets the guidelines and is notable.

This page was deleted previously -- I did quite a bit of research and poured through Wikipedia guidelines and found evidence to support that the first entry I made fit the bill for "notable" -- but never could get to the bottom of the rabbit hole to figure out where to even contest it. I tried to put it back up twice and was given directions to how to contest it. The instructions said to first contact the original person that deleted it and I did contact you to share my case about why the individual was notable, but you told me you were not the one that originally deleted it.

After some time, I logged back in and was again met with the same message about it being a previously deleted page. I again tried and figure out exactly who might have deleted (since the instructions said to do this first) it but couldn't find any other names and started reading about the process for contesting a deleted page. I didn't have time to research everything at the time and decided to shelve it for a later date. I tried again to go through the process -- and this time I was not met with the note about it being a previously deleted page.

I republished it with updated information -- removing any awards or accolades from sites that might be seen as questionably notable (this was eluded to in the original feedback) and adding several more public accomplishments from credible sources (with references). Other editors reviewed the page and it remained up until today. I noticed a note that said the page needed more categories -- so spent 30-40 minutes researching categories and choosing some that seemed exactly appropriate for a total of 5 categories. I then removed the note saying that it needed more categories (I had looked at some other pages and 5 seemed to be an appropriate amount -- not too few, yet not too many to not be precisely relevant) -- and within minutes you had tagged it for speedy deletion again.

I would love to contest the speedy delivery -- there appears to be something to "click" to do this button in the note on my Talk page, but that button is not clickable. I don't even know where to go from here.

I can (and will if you'd like) find other published pages of people who have far less documented "notably" per Wikipedia's guidelines than Kim. Why are these pages up?

I am not trying to "use" Wikipedia to publish something about someone that doesn't deserve to be recognized. This person is a leader in a niche that is pretty important to a lot of people.

Can you please give me some specific examples for why this person is not notable -- and some ideas for how I can document notability?

Thank you! Christineokelly (talk) 04:26, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I think you're right that the material that has been added appears to be sufficient to establish the notability of that subject so I've withdrawn the speedy deletion request; thanks for pointing it out!

In the future, it might be helpful to place a note on the Talk page of an article if you make significant edits. This would be especially helpful if you've recreated an article that was previously deleted as non-admins can not see deleted articles so it's hard for us to know if a recreated article has been improved or if someone is just stubbornly ignoring consensus to try to retain an article that has already been deleted.

And please note that we're all volunteers here so "other articles are (or are not) doing the same thing!" is not often a useful argument as each of us can only do so much. If you know of other articles that fail to meet our notability standards and you have the time and inclination, please nominate them for deletion or open a discussion in their Talk pages. ElKevbo (talk) 14:48, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Kevin! I appreciate you taking the time to re-review and definitely understand what it must be like to try and keep the integrity of Wikipedia. That's my goal too! Thanks for teaching me some of the ropes. I'll be sure to document the Talk page of an article next time if I do make significant edits. Again -- I appreciate the feedback! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christineokelly (talk • contribs) 19:28, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any ideas on what to do with this disaster of an article at Otterbein University. It's some of the weirdest vandalism/insertion of false information I've ever seen.--GrapedApe (talk) 23:54, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for straightening that out. Donner60 (talk) 00:10, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for tackling this one, it badly needed it!--ukexpat (talk) 02:44, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new here, and so my first response was to just wander off for a while, so this is a bit old at this point.

However, giving someone a "warning" about an "edit war" is highly inappropriate when 1) that person provided a citation and 2) you kept arbitrarily deciding that citation wasn't good enough. People like you playing king of the fiefdom is probably why casual contributors like me keep not coming back for long periods of time, or don't come back at all. I understand the Wikipedia base has been shrinking for a while now and pages are becoming stale as a result, and now I understand why, too... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shelbystripes (talk • contribs) 22:52, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit summary was: "rm spam." Reviews in Religion and Theology, Volume 18, Issue 3 has a review by Mark Chapman, who comments: "It is a very thorough book, the product of a PhD thesis, rich in information, which sets Robertson well in the context of his time and contemporaries - a masterful account, which has been so long in gestation." That doesn't sound like spam to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunray (talk • contribs) 11:10, March 12, 2013‎

The material was originally added by a now-blocked editor whose only edits were to add material from one publisher to the "Further reading" or similar sections of articles. If the specific item you have mentioned is indeed worth keeping in the article and you're willing to vouch for its quality and usefulness, please feel free to add it back to the article! ElKevbo (talk) 16:28, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ElKevbo, In view of developments on my proposed reference. This is to request that please reconsider you decision in the light of my sincere answer to 4twenty42o as follows: "Thank you 4twenty42o for giving an opportunity to me to share my view point. The article talks about growth in distance education. Somehow it missed references to the Indian scenario, where it has made tremendous growth and contributions over the last 50 years.... As a distance educator with over three decades of experience, without hiding my true identity, I am trying link a compilation first of its kind in the Indian context for `further readings'. I hope you will find it worthwhile and reconsider your decision." Thank you Ravi K Mahajan (talk) 14:04, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your message and I sympathize. However, conflicts of interest are a serious issue in Wikipedia and we're very sensitive to people promoting themselves or their associates. In general, many of us believe that if an author's book or article is truly important then it's likely that someone other than the author will take the time to add the resource. It's not a perfect solution but it avoids many of the possible problems with conflicts of interest and self promotion. ElKevbo (talk) 18:38, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for weighing in. It is asking a lot because a lot of ink has been spilled, and if it is asking too much then - well, I guess please say so - but I'd really appreciate a thoughtful statement somewhere on the Flagship talk page that would get us past the current editing impasse. I think that a flat-out list of putative flagships is a magnet for POV editing and edit warring (I managed to merge a prior problem list out of existence), but if such a list has to be, I really can't see how one (admittedly quite common, but really, just reflexively cited) list frequently republished by The College Board can or should be the sole and definitive source. With all the (reliably sourced) infighting, posturing and disagreement in the real world on this subject, I don't see how a nice clean list of flagships, conveniently one per state, can be justified. Thanks for whatever insights you can offer. JohnInDC (talk) 02:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not (currently) opposed to including a table as long as it's well-labeled and transparent about its criteria for inclusion. Just as important would be some discussion of the reason why we've explicitly labeled the table e.g., "Flagship status is officially designated in some states but is ambiguous in others. Additionally, some universities are considered flagships by common accord despite lacking official recognition by state or federal government." That would need to be cleaned up, expanded with examples, and well-sourced, of course.

Offhand, going with The College Board isn't a bad way to go. Is there another similar group that provides a similar list e.g., SHEEHO, ACE, APLU? I don't think there is anything in IPEDS related to this which is a shame because that would be the most authoritative source. ElKevbo (talk) 03:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A table laid out as you describe would largely resolve my main and original concern, which is tendentious editing by people who feel that their school has been slighted somehow in a list. Schools on an broadly inclusive list would require proper sourcing, as does any Wikipedia entry, and that's easy enough to police on a principled basis. But a limited list has to be limited according to some rule or principle and right now there really isn't one other than "this is a popular list propagated by the College Board". My IP counterpart is however quite wedded to that list as official, or authoritative, or exclusive and I'm not doing very well at making headway in either suitably qualifying that one-per-state list, or opening the door to schools supported by other sources. JohnInDC (talk) 11:22, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove the "Round of 32" field? Tom Danson (talk) 02:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but I don't understand your question; can you please be more specific? I edited both the main FGCU article and the FGCU basketball team article but my edits were intended to consolidate and copy edit existing information. Did I accidentally remove something significant? ElKevbo (talk) 03:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Guys my name is Frank, I have been an anonymous contributor to this page for years. Can I send you guys photos that I am taking of the school? I just created a user account and I can't upload yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FGCU (talk • contribs) 13:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would probably be easiest if you can toss the photos on Flickr or a similar website where we can easily grab them. If you go that route, see if you can also specify that you're releasing the image under a free license or the public domain when you upload them so there aren't any questions later about whether the photos are allowed on Wikipedia. That would also be a good way to go because it keeps the whole process transparent instead of e-mail which isn't as transparent; that's an important consideration when working with a large group of people who don't really know one another and sometimes have cause to be a little bit distrustful or skeptical

And you're definitely going to need to change your username as Wikipedia editors aren't allowed to have usernames that are the same as an organization or company, especially if they intend to edit on behalf of that organization or company. You'll probably be blocked from editing with that username pretty soon so you should change of username or create a new account. ElKevbo (talk) 20:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most WP pages for Community Colleges in Oregon contain college history, photo, logo, info about locations etc. yet COCC's page has very little information. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Oregon_Community_College

I added a brief history of Central Oregon Community College this morning but it appears you have deleted it. Why? Should it be shorter?

Thanks, Scott

Here's the full history from our website (again the quick facts page): Central Oregon Community College was founded in 1949 as part of the Bend School District. It is the longest standing community college in Oregon. The College District was formed in 1959 and officially established as the Central Oregon Area Education District by a vote of residents in 1962.

In the spring of 1962, a 140-acre tract of land on the west side of Awbrey Butte was donated for the purposes of establishing COCC's main campus. Additional smaller purchases and donations increased the COCC Bend campus to a total of 202 acres that face a spectacular view of Oregon's Cascade mountain range. Construction began in 1963, and the first three buildings - Ochoco, Modoc and Deschutes - were completed by the spring of 1964. In 1965, Jefferson, Metolius and Grandview Student Union were constructed. Six additional buildings were constructed in the next 10 years. The late 1980s and 1990s saw the addition of the Boyle Education Center, the Barber Library and Newberry Hall. Cascades Hall, which houses Oregon State University - Cascades, opened in the fall of 2002. In the last five years, COCC Bend has added the Campus Center, the Jungers Culinary Center, and the Health Careers and Science Centers.

Today, Central Oregon Community College's Bend campus offers quiet, peaceful surroundings for study and reflection. The campus includes 26 buildings with a total of 575,000 square feet under roof.

In addition, on the 25-acre Redmond Campus near the Redmond Airport, three buildings encompass 52,000 square feet: the Redmond College Center; the Redmond Workforce Connection, which offers convenience to residents looking for education and training opportunities; and the Manufacturing and Applied Technology Center (MATC).

In 2011, COCC opened campuses in both Madras and Prineville, providing classes and services to residents of Jefferson and Crook Counties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdonnell (talk • contribs) 18:42, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted it because you cut and paste the material directly from the website. That's a copyright violation. Feel free to propose some original text for the article using that as a reference, preferably one of several references. ElKevbo (talk) 19:23, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thanks Kevin, Will do. I'll get the hang of this yet. Sdonnell (talk 20:30, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Hang in there; this is a weird place! ElKevbo (talk) 20:54, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your reversion and changes of several recent posts is puzzling. You reverted a reference to the web archives of Pacific Western University California. Your reason was that it was original research. The current article lists Barry McSweeny who claimed to have earned a PhD degree in biotechnology and biochemistry from Pacific Western University California. The Pacific Western University - California website archived from the time of the article shows no such degree was offered by the University. The University only offered one PhD program and that was in Business Administration. There is no original research on my part, only reference to the archived web site that speaks for itself. I think it is important for readers to know when incorrect information is contained in a Wikipedia article. I am interested on hearing your thoughts on this matter.Angelone7749 (talk) 17:13, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Using an archived copy of an institution's website to claim that someone's degree is phony is indeed original research which isn't permitted here. If the claim is true and important then surely someone else has already made the claim which you can then add and cite in the article. ElKevbo (talk) 17:19, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The information from the PWU California website makes no claim made that Mr. McSweeny or anyone’s degree was phony. The various Irish newspaper articles that are cited in this section of the article make those claims. PWU California did not offer this degree program. This information is a simple independently verifiable and published fact. No claims. Perhaps I have read the definition of Original Research incorrectly. Please show me in the language of original research definition where excluding this type of information is labeled or considered original research.Angelone7749 (talk) 15:48, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If someone else has established that the university didn't offer the degree when it was claimed to have been received then you might be able to include that information if the source is reliable. But if no one else has made the claim and you're basing it off your own research comparing the date is claimed and an archive of the university's website then that's original research and it can't be included. How do you know the copy of the website is an accurate copy? How do you know the website itself is accurate e.g., it's not simply out-of-date or incorrect? Those are the kinds of questions an independent research must answer and ones that Wikipedia editors shouldn't be answering themselves to publish new information in an encyclopedia article. ElKevbo (talk) 15:57, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your explanation. I'll do a little more research and get back. On the other information about the GAO report you reverted the materials which are direct quotes from official senate record. The material is very clear. What is it you don't understand and why do you fell this excerpt doesn't add to the article and readers' understanding of this topic?Angelone7749 (talk) 14:55, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It just seemed longer and more specific than necessary to make the point. We should strive for brevity. ElKevbo (talk) 14:57, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. You seem very knowledgeable. It's nice to see someone so knowledgeable with simple, straight forward responses. Are you employed by Wikipedia or are you just contributing on your own?Angelone7749 (talk) 21:59, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm another volunteer editor like you but I've been around for a while. ElKevbo (talk) 22:02, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good. I like your input and your dedication. Let me share my reasoning for adding the information that I did in the Senate Hearing/GAO section of the article. I hope you can understand and relate. You may be aware of this fact but there were two different Pacific Western University schools offering degree programs in 2003-2004. Facts from the two schools often get lumped together and the two schools are easily confused. Readers can assume that PWU is one school with the same curriculum, same educational delivery system and same academic standards operating in multiple states. This was not the case. The official testimony and Senate Record I present demonstrates this fact. Since this is an article on PWU California, accuracy regarding PWU California is very important. If you reread the the material that I directly quoted from the Senate Hearing you will see that it showed the search criteria used by the Senate and the GAO for the Hearing and the GAO report. They say they found and named three specific schools that met this criteria. One of the three schools identified in the Record was used as an example of a domestic flat rate tuition. The quote I included clearly identifies that school as Pacific Western University - Hawaii. The official record later clarified that Pacific Western University Hawaii and Pacific Western University California are separate schools with a vastly different tuition. The reason they have a different tuition is that they have different academic programs and the schools operate under vastly different state laws. PWU California was extremely regulated and operated under the laws of the BPPVE. Although this California State Approval was not accreditation it was a Certification by the State of California that the school met minimum education standards in a wide variety of areas including curriculum, quality of programs and faculty and the granting of experienced based credits. PWU Hawaii operated under Hawaii laws which the Senate Record acknowledges that up until recently, the State of Hawaii had been a "Haven" for Diploma Mills. These two schools are not the same program and the Senate official Hearing Record makes the distinction. Most readers of the main article will not be aware that the two PWU programs had these differences. That is why the information I added from the Official Senate Record, without adding any opinions other details which might be construed as original research, is important and why this information should be presented in this article.Angelone7749 (talk) 23:42, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ok. Now things make more sense. But either I've missed something in the article or the text you added didn't quite make that - what you just told me - clear. If the former, I apologize for not understanding things. If the latter, I suggest reworking your suggested contribution or existing text in the article to make your point more directly and succinctly. In fact, if the point you are making is valid and it's not already in the lead of the article then it definitely needs to be added there. ElKevbo (talk) 12:54, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input. I find it very valuable. I will try and rework the material to be clearer and more to the point. I would like to get your input on my revised attempt prior to posting in the article, if you are willing. Once again thank you for your input.Angelone7749 (talk) 16:22, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to offer further input. I recommend putting a draft in the Talk section of the article so others can see it, too. Please drop me a note if you do that so I don't miss it. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 18:50, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know that you had to source facts. The overwhelming majority of the statements that I added to John Wooden's legacy were the truth. There is a distinction between fact and opinion (point of view). I try not to inject too much speculation into my edits.

There can be no question that UCLA would NOT have won the NCAA tournament 10 out of 12 years if today's format had been in place in 1964. I deliberately did not mention that in the article. For you information, I remember watching UCLA win its first title on TV in 1964. That was 49-years ago. The Bruins were smaller but much faster than the Blue Devils. Walt Hazzard fouled out near the end of the game and I remember Hazzard cutting down the net in celebration. Little did anyone know what was going to happen over the next 12 years.

Anthony22 (talk) 17:17, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you have to source facts in this encyclopedia. It's one of our core tenets. ElKevbo (talk) 18:05, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:SUNY Stony Brook seal.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:46, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited James Madison University, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ABC (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:25, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:UNF Seal.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:07, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Your work has made wikipedia a better place Plcoopr (talk) 12:29, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 14:10, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's copyvio, from a student there I'd say given the IP was from the University. Dougweller (talk) 18:00, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited United States University, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page KPBS (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:36, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After one good-faith revert on College admissions in the United States? Are you serious? My well-sourced relevant addition was chopped out without much of an explanation, so in good faith, I reverted back; so I do not think I am entitled to such a stern warning.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:46, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly answer my question -- please explain how you feel I was "edit-warring"?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:10, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You made an edit, someone reverted with a reasonable edit summary, and you reverted their revert prior to establishing a consensus to do so. That is de jure edit warring. It's not a capital offense so don't dwell on it but it's not good practice so it's to be avoided. ElKevbo (talk) 14:10, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your explanation.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:41, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree with Berstabit and NU DOE and User:Nemont, thank you to ElKevbo for finally deleting the Controversy section from the page, our prestigious university doesn't deserve these attacks on our reputation. President Obama and Steve Forbes have both declared Neumont is the best computer science program in the United States. We are not a sham. Lymani (talk) 06:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit on textbooksrus.com's Wikipedia page has left me a bit perplexed! I attached original court filing documents which allege that Textbooksrus.com and its principal Phil Smyres have imported counterfeit textbooks into the US for the past several years and sold them to thousands of students across the country. The lawsuit has been brought by major US publishers in a Federal Court in SDNY and original court documents can been seen here . Moreover, Mr Smyres and Textbooksrus.com were previously sued by the same publishers and they had to settle with the publishers for an undisclosed amount and a written promise to not import counterfeit textbooks into the US again. I believe my citation of the court documents and the pending lawsuit was fair since I clearly mentioned the terms "allegedly" and "pending". This is commonly done in thousands of Wikipedia articles for public entities then why is this an exception?! As a public entity, shouldn't it be fair that it be simply mentioned on Textbooksrus.com's Wikipedia article that they were recently sued by a conglomerate of publishers for importing and selling counterfeit textbooks supported by original court filings? Mikemaher110 (talk) 06:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)Mikemaher110[reply]

Anyone can file a lawsuit making allegations so we need something more to substantiate that a particular lawsuit is worth including in an encyclopedia article. ElKevbo (talk) 13:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that anyone can file a lawsuit, but this situation is very different due to the following reasons..

• In 2008 Textbooksrus.com and Phil Smyres (Defendants) were sued by all the major US publishers (Plaintiffs) for importing and selling counterfeit textbooks. The defendants agreed to pay an undisclosed sum to the plaintiffs to settle the lawsuit and agreed not engage in such activities again. Even though the settlement terms and the damages paid by the defendants are confidential, the complaint and the fact that the defendants did not go to trial and instead agreed to settle with the plaintiffs is well documented on various legal websites: US Publishers Vs. Textboooksrus.comTextbooksrus Pirated Books Case.

• In 2012 various publishers refused to supply any textbooks to Textbooksrus and all companies owned by Phil Smyres due to their past illegal activities. In order to force the publishers to supply them with textbooks; Textbooksrus and Phil Smyres (Plaintiffs) sought a temporary restraining order against the publishers (defendants) in December 2012. This case is public as well and the presiding judge ruled in favor of the publishers and since then Textbooksrus.com has had its accounts suspended by all the publishers. The final court order is public as well. Judge denies Textbooksrus Motion. This case was documented by various legal websites as well. Publishers Needn't Fill Textbook Order In Antitrust Fight

• Textbooksrus.com is a public entity and any legal actions against it are reportable. For instance, in a hypothetical situation where Walmart is sued by a labor union and the court documents are available publicly, wouldn't it be news that this lawsuit has been filed mush before the actual outcome? Wouldn't Walmart's Wikipedia entry immediately make it public? Of course, the report should not assert its opinion, but a mere mention of the fact that a legal action has been initiated against the entity (corroborated by court documents) should be acceptable. Mikemaher110 (talk) 19:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)Mikemaher110[reply]

I agree with ElKevbo here. Court documents are generally a primary source, using them in Wikipedia can sometimes lead to original research, since instead of a reporter saying something is important, it's a Wikipedia contributor. What's needed are secondary sources; surely if this matter is important, they can be found?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think those are particularly strong sources. If these lawsuits were really important wouldn't they have been written about or discussed in some more well-known places outside of a couple of very specialized legal sites?

And to answer your hypothetical question about Walmart: No, the mere fact that someone sued Walmart and made court documents available wouldn't give anyone a license to add that to Walmart's article. The reasoning is the same as explained above: We need good evidence of the importance of material before adding it to an encyclopedia article. It's not enough that we have reliable sources discussing the topic but it needs to rise to a level of importance to be worth including in an encyclopedia. We're not a news site. ElKevbo (talk) 23:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have listed a few secondary sources of the previous lawsuits involving textbooksrus.com. However, the current lawsuit was very recently filed which is probably why I have not been able to find any online reporting on it. Though the court documents posted online have been referenced in some blogs.Mikemaher110 (talk) 19:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)Mikemaher110[reply]

Noted.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So what is the verdict? Can the current lawsuit be mentioned on Textbooksrus.com's Wikipedia page? And from your statements, it seems that their previous lawsuits can be listed since there are multiple sources mentioning them. Mikemaher110 (talk) 23:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)Mikemaher110[reply]

I don't think you've met the burden of evidence necessary to add this material. But I'm just another editor here. I recommend posting your argument and evidence to the Talk page of the article in question where other editors who are interested in the topic will see it and perhaps give their opinion. If no one else weighs in, we can ask for further input from others then. ElKevbo (talk) 23:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand this about the current lawsuit. But going by your argument regarding secondary sources, the previous lawsuits (which are well documented online) can be mentioned, right? Mikemaher110 (talk) 00:12, 2 May 2013 (UTC)Mikemaher110[reply]

I don't think the sources you've provided suffice to add the material to an encyclopedia article. But I again urge you to consider discussing in the article's Talk page where you might get opinions from other editors. ElKevbo (talk) 14:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ElKevbo-

Regarding the classification of the ATO of MA co-ed group on the Tufts University page, ATO of Massachusetts actually refers to itself as a co-ed "frarority". As a current Tufts student, I confirmed this fact with ATO of Massachusetts's current president and vice-president, both of whom I know personally. They can confirm if requested. Bmarkopolo (talk) 03:04, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consider the response in the ATO of Massachusetts section in the talk section of Tufts University.Bmarkopolo (talk) 23:55, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I've responded there. ElKevbo (talk) 01:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wanna jump back in, I'm not sure I'm getting anywhere and maybe a different way of looking at it would help?Naraht (talk) 23:43, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ElKevbo. When you encounter any Mangoeater1000 sockpuppets, rather than posting at ANI, feel free to drop a note on my talk page. I've been very involved with limiting his damage and blocking his accounts, so I'll be glad to deal with them. Cheers ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:04, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much! I appreciate the offer and I hope to never have to take you up on it. :) ElKevbo (talk) 14:19, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. Sorry for the fuss. I see this editor is now going through articles I created and blanking sections for no reason, if you check his contribs. I think I've had it with him and I'm obviously too close to this now. Would you mind cleaning up the mess and giving him a talking to? Thanks. freshacconci talktalk 14:57, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. I've asked our colleagues with administrative permissions to please block this editor for a bit to prevent continued vandalism so hopefully that will get his or her attention. ElKevbo (talk) 15:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm walking away from this today as it has been a huge time-waster. I do realize I was also edit-warring, though I honestly believe that I was reverting possible BLP violations but 3RR is pretty clear. Mea culpa. Thanks for the help. freshacconci talktalk 15:26, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How do I complain about other users? I don't think it's right for wiki editors to bully other users. If Freshacconci has a problem with my writing, he can edit it I think. I don't think it's write to insult other users. In addition, it was very unreasonable of him to demand immediate responses to his messages. I noticed that I am not the only user to complain about him on his talk page.

It really feels like wiki is an old boys club where well connected users can bully everyone else. What a joke — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mobility99 (talk • contribs) 22:00, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]