User talk:ElKevbo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

MasterClass Revisions[edit]

Hello, I'm the Director of Communications at MasterClass, an online education company. Because you were involved in the Educational technology page and are involved in education, I'm writing to see if you can please review my proposed content I shared on the Talk page here. I have posted it for general review and am asking you to review it as I have a conflict of interest working for the company. Is this something you could please help me with?

Thank you. BethMasterClass (talk) 22:27, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Done. ElKevbo (talk) 01:37, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

YOUR MESSAGE BethMasterClass (talk) 16:14, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, I really appreciate it. If you can, appreciate you watchlisting the page as well. Thank you

Joining WikiProject Universities?[edit]

Hi ElKevbo!

I notice that a lot of your work on Wikipedia relates to higher education, but that you're not currently listed as a participant of WikiProject Universities. Is this intentional, or would you be interested in joining? You can place {{User:UBX/WPUNI}} on your user page, or just add yourself directly here. - Sdkb (talk) 15:37, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Lenoir Rhyne University[edit]

Please stop vandalising our wiki page.. The guidelines are clear on majors and graduate programs and we adhere to those by wikipedia. So, please stop removing academic details. Those are far more important than who was our president in 1891, who graduated from the university and what sports we play. 69.132.104.25 (talk) 16:42, 8 May 2019 (UTC)Dr. Bjarne Berg, professor

Please review WP:COI, WP:UNIGUIDE, and WP:NOTDIR. It's most important to note that it's not "your wiki page" but an article in a collaborative encyclopedia project. More importantly, you are strongly discouraged from editing article about topics where you might have a conflict of interest. ElKevbo (talk) 17:14, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 10[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Regent University, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Associate (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:06, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Typo?[edit]

Hello. I took a quick glance at your webpage and noticed that you 'hold a secondary faulty appointment'. I do hope you're able to have it repaired. I understand these things are quite difficult to return to the shop after you've had them for a while. Cheers, BlackcurrantTea (talk) 11:18, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. It's still under warranty. :) ElKevbo (talk) 13:10, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 May 2019[edit]

Northcentral University granted non-profit status by WASC in November 2018.[edit]

Go to WASC website and search Northcentral University. Then click on link titled "Structural change action letter, change of ownership November 2018". See section 2 in the last paragraph of page 1 Qcmrwu (talk) 18:24, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

That letter says the commission "Approve[s] the proposed Change of Control and Legal Status, through which Northcentral University will change its control to the National University System, and change to non-profit legal status as part of the transaction. Prior to the closing of the transaction, material changes in the proposed terms must be reported immediately to WSCUC to determine if further review or action is necessary [emphasis added]." The parts that I emphasized indicate that the commission will make these changes but had not done so when the letter was written. And the based on the Statement of Accreditation Status for Northcentral University the changes still haven't happened. ElKevbo (talk) 19:03, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

What?[edit]

You wrote re: article - University of Georgia - "Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. ElKevbo (talk) 10:56, 3 June 2019 (UTC)" I do not perform any "vandalism" or "unconstructive" edits, and do not understand your unfriendly, unhelpful, adamantine, hard-nosed, and obnoxious comment. My edits may depend on other parts of an article, but are supported by citation(s) as part of the article. Apparently you have no life except to sit at a keyboard and be obnoxious and not be helpful in complete opposition to the ideals of wikipedia. It appears you have no ability to direct others except to attempt such through the Internet. Get a real life. If you continue on this path I must request we submit our differences to evaluation of an administrator (if you are one - someone higher up than you) and / or to arbitration. Please respect the talk page guidelines and try to be civil. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 12:25, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Again?[edit]

You typed, "Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. ElKevbo (talk) 11:53, 3 June 2019 (UTC)" Look up the word, "libel". How am I "disruptive" and how am I one to "vandalize?" You seem to enjoy statements without giving support. Reviewing your CV, sad. Try to speak entirely and directly. I believe a higher authority and / or arbitration is called for. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 12:43, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

You changed the university's latin name to "Univershitas Georgiae" and added nonsense to its motto. That's pretty clear vandalism. Clean it up and stop. ElKevbo (talk) 13:19, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
If you will look at the edits - I neither changed anything, nor added anything. Get your facts straight. Your statement appears to be an example of your ignorance. Also, your arrogance is sadly misplaced. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 14:25, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Here is where you mangled the motto and here is where you added profanity to the institution's latin name.
And cut out the personal attacks; they're not productive, they're not welcome, and they're liable to lead to you being blocked if you persist. ElKevbo (talk) 15:05, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
I suggest you take your own advice re: personal attacks. See, personal attacks. In my view, your unseemly, horrid, unnecessary, and bizarre attacks are so far beyond Wikipedia's standards as to need quashing through a minimum of blocking, if not actionable libel as folks know me by my online name. If you disagree, let's start by taking your behavior to an administrator and see who gets blocked. As to your last attack: (1) I neither intentionally mangled anything (the “mangeling” is nonsensical), nor intentionally used "Univershitas" - all are merely errors, plus (2) Univershitas, regardless, is not a curse. Let me know when you will be willing to have your behavior evaluated by an administrator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quaerens-veritatem (talkcontribs) 02:42, June 4, 2019 (UTC)
Quaerens-veritatem, I suggest you read WP:BOOMERANG and WP:THREAT, because right now your driving yourself to that block.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 16:00, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Georgia[edit]

Do you really believe anyone with a modicum of knowledge or intelligence would confuse the University of Georgia (US) with the university in the former state of Georgia - specially after reading just the introductory sentence? Really? The idea is great for useless quibbling.Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 14:12, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I do think it's reasonable for readers, particularly those outside of the United States, to think that "University of Georgia" may refer to the country with that name. We have an international audience. ElKevbo (talk) 15:06, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Anyone that can read the article's English introduction will know immediately that a U.S. institution is the subject. Any other view assumes gross and unbelievable ignorance.Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 06:49, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
but if someone goes there who has not read the lede it is reasonable to point them to the one that might have looked for.Slatersteven (talk) 12:24, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
And it is standard practice. It is needed for access issues- screen readers are cited. It should be the first elements of the page, before any maintenance tags, infobox, or image. As has been done. The University of Georgia (Tbilisi) article could do with references! ClemRutter (talk) 17:42, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

City Vision University Revisions[edit]

Hi, I'm the President of City Vision University. We are a small nonprofit university that primarily serves staff at charities that serve the poor. As you can see from the page history, much of the content already on the page was added by our staff. I do not believe that because I am from the school, it should warrant reverting almost all the edits en mass as you just did. Because we are a small niche school, the reality is not a lot of people are adding content to our page other than those that you might consider to have a conflict of interest.

I appreciate the fact that you are investing a lot of effort as a wikipedia editor of colleges and universities. I can see how having clear factual information on schools could greatly benefit many students and help students sift through institutions to identify those providing the most value from those that might be exploitative. I believe that for you as an editor to take a broad brush to a small institution like ours by roll back changes en mass creates social harm, and works against the spirit of the intent of Wikipedia. Your roll back made a lot of the article incorrect and is not helpful.

I'm willing to have more granular dialog on specific changes if you believe that something specific I did violates Wikipedia's standards. For now, I'm reverting all your changes back. The intent is to have a more granular dialog.

I hope that you will cooperate with that approach. I myself am an MIT graduate and co-founded a research group with David D Clark, who is credited by many as one of the top 10 people helped to develop the Internet. I say that not to brag, but to explain that I believe in the values of Wikipedia, but I also will fight endlessly and pursue dispute resolution if you as an editor overstep your authority in ways that both hurt my institution and the common good as I believe you have.

Again, I get that it is very hard for you to edit so many higher education institution pages, and I'm sure it's a thankless job. So I appreciate what you are doing. If you can't be more granular in your edits, I would appreciate you giving more latitude to let us make edits to the page as we have over the past decade. Alsears (talk) 21:24, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

@Alsears: As the president of the university you absolutely should not be editing the article! Please review our COI guideline and FAQ for organizations. You're more than welcome to request edits in the article's Talk page but you should not be making those edits yourself unless you're sure that they're non-controversial. ElKevbo (talk) 21:41, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
@ElKevbo:I get what you are saying if you want to operate like a robot and not use any discretion in interpretation. The reality is that more than 90% of the edits of schools as small as ours are made by staff for those schools. More than 90% of the past edits on our page were made by our staff. Please use a bit of common sense. I will escalate this dispute as necessary. I can't imagine why you would be putting so much effort into this unless you cared about the common good. It is not serving the common good being a Wikipedia bully to a small institution that is essentially serving the Mother Theresa's of the world. If you want to identify specific edits that are controversial, do that, but don't revert the whole thing.Alsears (talk) 22:21, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Give me a few more minutes, please; I'm writing out detailed explanations for all of my edits in the article's Talk page. ElKevbo (talk) 22:23, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Could you clarify why you removed all the discussion on this talk page? I get that you understand Wikipedia's culture and rules better than I do, and I'm trying to comply. Having said that, all the notices that you've put on our page seem to just be trying to prove a point that you are more "powerful" that I am in the Wikipedia world.

Look man, I gave up a job doing Internet consulting for $200 an hour to train people working with addicts where I took almost a 10-fold pay cut. I'm trying to do the right thing here, and you are wrecking our organization's brand to prove a point. It's like you are driving a Mac Truck over Mother Theresa in your approach. Please tone it down, and try not to retaliate in your response.

If you put COI notices on every small nonprofit organization that had staff update their pages, then they would exist on more than 90% of the nonprofit pages on Wikipedia. It's important to be consistent in enforcing the rules.

Alsears (talk) 22:50, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I'll drop a note on your Talk page to clarify that we place new messages at the bottom of Talk pages; it's a helpful practice given the rather primitive nature of wiki software and its lack of support for threaded discussions.
I'm sorry but we're not here to help anyone support their "brand." And if we're inconsistent in enforcing our policies around conflicts of interest and paid editing then that's probably because we're a volunteer-run organization with many thousands of volunteers. Those policies have also evolved over time so if you look at practices from even a few years ago you'll probably find a lot of differences in what we do today.
Conflicts of interest and paid edits are massive problems for us and we're probably doing very bad jobs in many articles consistently helping new editors understand our policies. Please understand that many people are trying to actively abuse our project solely for their own commercial gain, often at the expense of any semblance of honesty or our core policies of neutrality.
For what it's worth, I think that many people have had reasonably good experiences when they make well-explained requests and suggestions in article Talk pages. We want our articles to be accurate and up-to-date and we genuinely appreciate any help we can get! But we have to also guard against people abusing this project, often in ways that are subtle. But if you refrain from editing your employer's article and make requests in Talk I think you'll get a fair shake. ElKevbo (talk) 22:58, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
I get that you are not here to support any organization's brand, but I'm just asking that you don't wreck it just because I don't understand wikipedia's protocols. The reality is that we have 5 staff. If I didn't make edits to our page, then it would be hopelessly out of date and potential students would be misinformed. Right now, your reverts listed the wrong tuition. My updates previously listed what will be our tuition starting in August.
I also get that you must get treated like crap for trying to defend integrity on wikipedia. Having said that, there is the spirit of Wikipedia's rules and the letter of the law. If you follow the letter only, then our page would only have information that is 10 years out of date. I don't think that's serving the spirit of the rule. I get that I probably made too many edits before that put a positive spin on our school. I didn't realize that violated the rules (probably both spirit and letter), so I'm sorry for that.
What do I need to do to get the notices on our page removed? Since you reverting most everything, I don't see why it would be biased.
Also, I need to make edits so the article is not factually incorrect as it is now. How do I do that? We are not big enough to have a big "public" base that would be doing these edits for us.
I get the fact that your are volunteer run, but I think a part of the principle of being volunteer run is to not put a bunch of effort into something that may cause more harm that good.Alsears (talk) 23:09, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
For very straight-forward and uncontroversial updates (e.g., replacing old data with current data and current references), you're probably okay if you make those changes yourself. Some other editors may disagree but if your edits are clearly non-controversial updates to existing information then it seems like unnecessary bureaucracy to make you request someone else do that. If you do that, I strongly recommend making the changes one-at-a-time with very clear edit summaries.
Edits that are more involved should be requested in Talk so that other editors can evaluate the requests and take responsibility for them in the article.
In any case, you should also ensure that you've clearly identified yourself as an editor with a connection to the institution. That will help ensure that you don't run afoul of our policies about paid editing.
Inkian Jason, an editor connected with Full Sail University, has been doing a good job of requesting edits for the institution with which he is connected.
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities is also a really good place to ask questions from experienced editors. It's also a good place to go if you ever post a request for an edit in your university article's Talk page and don't get a timely response; if you look through the archives of that Talk page - they're linked at the top of the page - you can see how others have done that in the past. ElKevbo (talk) 23:21, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
ElKevboThanks. What do I need to do to get the notices on our page removed? Would you be OK with just reverting everything to before I made all these edits and then starting from there? The reason why I ask, is all these edits have made the page a lot less accurate. I want to make it accurate, but I want to avoid the problem you mentioned of making too many edits at once. It would be easier to just roll things back before I messed things up and then do a few factual edits from there. Would that work with you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alsears (talkcontribs) 23:25, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
At this point I don't think we'd want to revert back to an older version of the article; other editors would probably view that with suspicion and object. I think we need to work with the article in its current state and move forward from here.
The first template can be remedied by finding and adding sources that are independent of the institution. For many of the most straight-forward data (e.g., enrollment, location, governance), you could suggest IPEDS as displayed in College Navigator; your institution's entry in College Navigator is at https://nces.ed.gov/collegenavigator/?id=457697. Your institution's Carnegie Classifications and related data might also be useful and can be sourced from the Indiana University webpage that hosts that information; your institution's entry there is at http://carnegieclassifications.iu.edu/lookup/view_institution.php?unit_id=457697. U.S. News & World Report is also cited in many article but I recommend against it unless you're specifically citing their rankings because most of their data comes from IPEDS or data provided by your institution so citing them is usually getting it second-hand when the original source is available. More qualitative or contextual information would probably come from media reports or scholarly sources (which I realize is a challenge for many smaller institutions - sorry!).
The second template about being edited by a connected contributor can be removed by another editor after they review the article and its history of edits to ensure that the article is reasonably free to biased edits by connected contributors. I'll try to make time to look at the article and its history to see if I'm comfortable removing that template myself. ElKevbo (talk) 23:37, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
I made the most important edits and have tried to remain as factual as possible. When you have time, please review the article and consider removing both templates. Please recognize my point that there really is a legitimate issue with how Wikipedia's policies might create a challenge for small institutions like ours: if staff don't make updates then the page either will be very incomplete or out of date or both. I'm trying to be a good player here. Alsears (talk) 00:18, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
@ElKevbo:Please let me know if you have any feedback after reviewing my edits. As I mentioned, I would like to do what I can to get the templates removed a soon as possible, so let me know if there are any other edits needed to do that.Alsears (talk) 19:36, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Your edit on Bryant & Stratton College[edit]

Dear User:ElKevbo, I don't know why you went against me on the article's talk page as I had agreed before to add the terrorist (but only in the alumni list - just as you did eventually, not in the lead etc. as the other user suggested...). Anyway, I want to thank you that you did so in a reasonable manner and with proper referencing.2A02:1205:5013:CCA0:35B1:837:1F23:65EB (talk) 06:50, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

If there were a medal of honor for Wikipedia, you would get it[edit]

Considering that you have a real job (and important one) outside of Wikipedia, you are a phenomenon. Thank you for all the sage advice.

Barnstar of Diligence.png The Barnstar of Diligence
message CollegeMeltdown (talk) 20:33, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
WikiDefender Barnstar Hires.png The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
message CollegeMeltdown (talk) 20:33, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Barnstar of Integrity Hires.png The Barnstar of Integrity
message CollegeMeltdown (talk) 20:33, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

CollegeMeltdown (talk) 20:33, 18 June 2019 (UTC)


STOP Unnecessary Reverts[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. (User talk:ssg2442) 20:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

List of Universities That Offer a Degree in Real Estate[edit]

I looked through every accredited college in the U.S. and picked out the ones offering real estate programs. I think it would be a useful source for the Graduate real estate education article. Could you work with me to develop a version that is not considered spam? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.122.74.177 (talk) 13:34, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

It's going to be very difficult to add your own website to any Wikipedia article and not have other editors consider it spam or unwelcome promotion. This may be a good place to ask about this and get opinions and advice from other editors. ElKevbo (talk) 17:38, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 19[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Albany State University, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Darton College (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 14:16, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Atlantic International University[edit]

Interesting recent edits here. Drmies (talk) 01:28, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Harvard[edit]

Hi ElKevbo,

Deleted Portion: The university was often cited as one of the world's top tertiary institutions until the rise of Stanford University.[11][12][13][14] As a result of the 21st century, Stanford has taken Harvard's spot as America's "dream college" and become America’s “it” school by measures that Harvard once dominated.[15][16]

Thanks for helping out on this issue. While I do agree that this portion is unnecessary in the lead, it should definitely be placed in the article, perhaps as its own section. There has been a definitive shift in 21st century where Stanford is being seen as the new Harvard. People need to know this. I chose it to go in the lead in order to replace the sentence "The university is often cited as the world's top university by most publishers.[11][12][13][14]", which is blatantly false and not supported by the sources. As such, we should replace this phrase with a more qualified, less bias version that Harvard does often rank in the top 5 but not always first. Runner5a76 (talk) 15:26, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

@Runner5a76: I agree that the information about Harvard's subtle shift down in some rankings may be suitable for later in the article; however, I caution against focusing too much on another university that is not the topic of this article or making too much of a recent phenomenon that is relatively minor especially when weighed against the entirety of this institution's history.
I also agree that the "is cited as the world's top university" information doesn't seem to belong in the lede. It may not be true anymore - which could be remedied simply by changing it to the past tense and placing some additional context - but it's also unnecessary given that the lede already has a very well-supported sentence that summarizes the institution's prestige. ElKevbo (talk) 18:06, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

The June 2019 Signpost is out![edit]

You've got mail[edit]

Mail-message-new.svg
Hello, ElKevbo. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.AbigailReed (talk) 19:34, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you![edit]

Cup-o-coffee-simple.svg Thanks for your help! Dawsoncc (talk) 21:08, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

How to deal with enrollment numbers[edit]

Ok, here's a question for you as our resident higher education expert. I'm wanting to make sure enrollment statistics are comparable across school pages in Missouri. I often see the Missouri Department of Higher Education report "Full-time equivalent (FTE)" enrollment statistics which differ significantly from "headcount" numbers usually touted by the institutions. My gut tells me that these FTE figures are more reliable for comparing enrollment, but I hesitate to apply this standard to all the school articles I edit in Missouri because it looks like most school articles nationwide unquestioningly use whatever enrollment numbers are reported on the school's webpage. Is there a standard for this somewhere? Do you have a recommendation? Thanks. Grey Wanderer (talk) 20:36, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

That's a great question and I don't recall if we've ever clearly settled on one as the standard in articles or just infoboxes. I imagine that many editors aren't even aware of the two different ways of counting students so we don't even have the numbers specified in most articles which is very confusing and bad all around. I see that the question was asked in 2015 in the archives for the relevant infobox but it wasn't answered so I've opened another discussion. At a minimum, we should be clearly specifying whether we're using headcount or FTE any time we present enrollment numbers. ElKevbo (talk) 21:06, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Over on secondary schools, I've been pushing to use NCES as the standard source for enrollment, as they are independent, undeniably accurate (federal money is distributed based on them. Inaccuracies will get called out and fixed quickly.), and apply the same methodology across all 50 states. They have figures for post secondary schools, but I don't think there is quite as complete of coverage. If a secondary school accepts any federal assistance at all, even just money for lunch programs, they must submit data to NCES. John from Idegon (talk) 21:52, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
The numbers that NCES has are all self-reported from the institution so they're not necessarily more accurate than what institutions report in other venues e.g., Common Data Set. They do collect data from colleges and universities in the Integrated Post-Secondary Education Data System (IPEDS). Regardless of the source that we use we still need to specify whether the numbers are headcount or FTE. ElKevbo (talk) 22:29, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
I agree, and raise you one. I'd make a definite statement that FTE is preferred. John from Idegon (talk) 22:57, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Vandal on Pearl River, New York[edit]

Out of curiosity, how did you determine that User:Bigdaddyjboi was a "known vandal", since their contributions page only shows a few edits over 2 days? Did you use a tool that revealed them as a sock puppet? -- Fyrael (talk) 21:09, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

No fancy tools or forbidden knowledge, just noting the nature of his or her edits. ElKevbo (talk) 21:13, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 July 2019[edit]

York University[edit]

I would appreciate it if you check the sources that I have researched to contribute to this article before you eliminate the additions that I have made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by QQQspadesQQQ (talkcontribs) 21:53, August 1, 2019 (UTC)

Please review WP:NOTNEWS and WP:DUE as my objection is not to the sources you have cited but the lasting importance of the information you added. I also object to you removing an entire section of the article without any discussion or justification. ElKevbo (talk) 13:18, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
The section removed on the Markham campus is because there is no Markham campus at York University. The proposed campus has been canceled and it is not being built. The Markham campus section contains a number of citations to news articles. This does not seem to fit with the goal of the article overall. — Preceding unsigned comment added by QQQspadesQQQ (talkcontribs) 09:30, August 2, 2019 (UTC)
Then I recommend moving the material to the history section (and likely trimming it some, too) as it's still relevant information for the history of the institution.
And please remember to sign your contributions to Talk pages. (You just have to type four tildes at the end of your post: ~~~~. ElKevbo (talk) 13:41, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Your deletion[edit]

You keep on deleting the name of the dean of the law school from Brooklyn Law School. Saying it is not "necessary." Nothing is necessary. Not even the article. It is, however, appropriate. If you think not - support that view. Otherwise, please stop your deletions.

Obviously, Harvard Law School - for example - reflects its dean. It also has a far more robust lede. Many law school ledes reflect for example notable alumni. And employment statistics. Yet you have deleted almost all of the Brooklyn Law lede of parallel information. Despite wp:lede. Why??? --2604:2000:E010:1100:ECC1:4C41:EA3C:A3EB (talk) 00:46, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

It's not necessary or helpful in most cases to include the name of the institution's leader in the lede for most articles. The infobox should be up-to-date, of course, and there may be another section or two where this information is appropriate e.g., "Organization," "Notable alumni." But simply naming the leader in the opening paragraphs is rarely helpful or informative for readers. ElKevbo (talk) 00:59, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
So - you are going to delete it from Harvard Law School? Yes, otherstuffexists is a valid complaint when it is buttressed by other arguments - and my other argument is that the leader of an organization, whether a law school or college or country, is indeed important. That's why it is also in the infobox. As you know, both the lead and the infobox are duplicative of what is in the text. Both are meant to capture items of importance in the body. You don't go ahead and delete from teh lede - or should not - whatever happens to be in the infobox. If you did, you would delete - for an individual, all the birthdates that are in the lede. In the very first sentence of the lede in fact.
It is odd that you keep on coming back to "what is necessary". That is non-sensical. The article itself is not necessary. Every addition you have ever made to wikipedia is not necessary. It is only helpful, at best. And here it is helpful. The fact that it is in the infobox, and in the Harvard Law article, militate for it. And your "not necessary" edit summary show the flaw in your thinking in your deletion.
And when you call sourced material you delete (it can be sourced in the body) unsourced, that is not helpful.
And when you call a deletion of content a "simplification" that smacks of (no doubt unintentional) concealment.
Plus - you have not responded to the deletion of the majority of the lede of that school. What is that all about. I would like to restore it or have it restored. Here is what it looked like in an earlier time. Consistent with other law schools like Harvard. 2604:2000:E010:1100:ECC1:4C41:EA3C:A3EB (talk) 01:20, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Article on Carleton College[edit]

Hi: you recently reverted a change I made to the logo of the article on Carleton College. I agreed with you 100% that the college can't dictate what the article should or shouldn't be. I'm simply trying to modernize the web page: that seal that's on the page now is out of date. The college rebranded a few years ago, and that seal is no longer the current way that the college identifies itself. Does that seem reasonable, or do you have other objections? WorldsApart (talk) 13:30, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand; the seal in the current article matches the one shown on the college's website. ElKevbo (talk) 14:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Right, but the seal is not the logo of the school. The seal is only used for stamping diplomas, and that sort of thing. Maybe that's what we're really debating: it seems to me that the main image shown on the page should be the school's public logo, not an obscure imprint used for official documents. Do you feel otherwise? WorldsApart (talk) 15:04, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
I agree with you but the prevailing consensus does not; more editors believe the seal is a critical identifier that belongs at the top of the infobox. Template Talk:Infobox university should have several threads about this in its archives and it would be the best place to raise this issue again if you'd like to do so. ElKevbo (talk) 15:07, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for pointing me to that archive: I was unaware of it. I disagree with their point, and might at least contact the editor. On the other hand, I may give up and move on. We'll see. WorldsApart (talk) 15:11, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Richard Spencer: one of UVA's most prominent alumni ever?[edit]

Hello ElKevbo! As a regular contributor to University of Virginia topics I encourage you to evaluate and comment on this discussion. I appreciate your consideration of the matter! Omnibus (talk) 16:59, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 9[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Paul Smith's College, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Associate (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:06, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

References[edit]

Hi, the references are needed at Sumner College as general references showing the college exists and has been reported in reliable sources. Removing all references from an article is disruptive, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 17:57, 13 August 2019 (UTC) Also, general references means references without citations Atlantic306 (talk) 17:58, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

What? No, that's not what references are! References are the materials from which we drew the material in the article. If nothing in the article was drawn from a document, it's not a reference. These are merely external links and we are very, very conservative in adding them to articles - and we almost always do so in the "External links" section.
I've opened a discussion in the article's Talk page; I expect you to participate as you've already been edit-warring over this. ElKevbo (talk) 18:09, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
    • You started edit warring, they are references Atlantic306 (talk) 18:16, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
What information in the article refers to those documents? ElKevbo (talk) 18:17, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Virtual College Counselor[edit]

I keep having material that I wrote removed. I have taken out the parts of the article that sound like a pitch. I had initially copied and pasted from the platform press release. This is an important subject in college admissions and should be addressed. Please let me know how to resolve this. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CollegeAdmissionsExpert (talkcontribs) 21:20, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

@CollegeAdmissionsExpert: Do you have a connection to MyKlovr? ElKevbo (talk) 00:38, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I am an unpaid advisor. I work with several organizations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CollegeAdmissionsExpert (talkcontribs) 11:33, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

You should probably review our conflict of interest guideline; it has helpful advice for situations like this. In general, it's probably best that you make suggestions and requests to edit the article(s) in Talk to avoid any suggestion or appearance of impropriety. ElKevbo (talk) 16:14, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for all of your help. I will make changes and request edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CollegeAdmissionsExpert (talkcontribs) 13:19, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Central Carolina Technical College wiki content edits[edit]

Hello ElKevbo,

I work in the public relation department of Central Carolina Technical College. I see a lot(overwhelming amount) of guidelines on what I can or possibly should avoid posting for our Wikipedia page. If there a beginner's guide to adding a college to Wikipedia that could help me with what kind of content specifically I can add to give details without sounding like I am selling something? Thank you in advance to you or anyone else with suggestions or links I can read.

-Mark — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark.duffie (talkcontribs) 18:32, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

So deleting links to Mayo Clinic, WebMD, National Institutes of Health which are all peer reviewed Science and Medicine in favor of "Quack watch" done by a Journalism student?[edit]

I am a retired and disabled biomedical engineer that has worked in medicine for 44 years and I attempted to add some what I thought were "Peer Reviewed" Medical and Science Links from Mayo Clinic, National Institutes of Health, WebMD, and others that you keep replacing with "Quackwatch" links done by Journalism Students under the direction of a "Psychiatrist" who has no training what so ever in treating something like hypertension in an airline pilot who may fly to a country where a drug like an ACE inhibitor is not available. I personally have almost died three times from Bad Blood pressure Prescriptions that now are listed as known carcinogens, and now known to be toxic to organs courtesy of MD's. I would suggest you leave editing pages about the medical profession to very experienced professionals who are from all types of medicine, not just Psychiatry, and not just MD's from the US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wmwmurray (talkcontribs) 04:03, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Hm, a retired engineer is threatening me with the might of the US government? Doug Weller talk 15:15, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
ElKevbo, did this editor send you an email? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:42, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Nope. ElKevbo (talk) 16:10, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2019[edit]