User talk:ElKevbo/Archive 8

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.

AfD nomination of Amish school shooting

An article that you have been involved in editing, Amish school shooting, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amish school shooting. Thank you. A. B. ^(talk) 22:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of List of YouTube celebrities

I have nominated List of YouTube celebrities, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of YouTube celebrities (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. The Helpful One ^(Talk)^{(Contributions) (Review Me!)} 20:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

civility?

I'd appreciate it if other editors knew what the fark they were writing about,... Dr. Cash (talk) 02:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User 12.39.2.83

I have asked a non-involved admin to keep an eye on this guy. [1] He's trying to make a false neutral-point-of-view argument about the talk page (it doesn't apply there) but his other smart-aleck comments suggest that he's merely trolling. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I filed an ANI and they issued a 31-hour block, a few hours ago. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NC A&T

Thanks for your inquiry.It is confirmed that he is a graduate, but DISTINGUISHED he is not. It is public knowledge that he is a graduate of A&T but the university does NOT recognize him as a DISTINGUISHED alumus. Please do not add his name back to the list. If you notice, I have not deleted A&T off of his page because that is relevant to HIS history but not A&T's.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Prowrite10 (talk • contribs) 10:30, February 20, 2008

I disagree. The institution does not get to determine who and who is not distinguished in a general sense. You seem to be applying the word solely in a positive manner whereas it has a broader, more neutral denotation. Infamy counts as "distinguished" just as fame counts. --ElKevbo (talk) 14:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We can agree to disagree, but as I have stated, on his page it has relevance but not on A&T's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prowrite10 (talk • contribs) 14:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please raise this on the article's Talk page to garner further discussion and input. At least one other editor has expressed a viewpoint similar to mine but we need further input. --ElKevbo (talk) 15:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sheesh

Something wasn't right, but it took me hours to find it.[2] I missed :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So much for running amok

Glad you're back; you were missed. Flowanda | Talk 02:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I really appreciate that! --ElKevbo (talk) 02:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NYU

The refernce supports the statement that NYU spent most of its endowment at the time "But unlike most institutions, which plow such sums into their endowments and then live off the interest, N.Y.U. spent nearly all of it to rebuild the university" [3] Uconnstud (talk) 20:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The statement is clearly talking about the money that was raised, not the endowment. --ElKevbo (talk) 20:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Yarrow

You're probably right about the edit. Whatever the merits of the content it's better not to edit protected pages except in extreme BLP violations and those categories are not a clear case. Mea culpa. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Real Life Ministries

I've sought your help before with problems on this article and I seem to need help again. Could you please review the recent edit history regarding unverifiable sourcing by '1TruthTracker'. I have tried to explain that the sourcing does not meet WP:VER and WP:RS standards but that seems to make no difference to this editor. 'TRAVELLINGCARI' has also tried to explain this via the discussion page and yet, a revert war is brewing. The entire editing history of '1TruthTracker' seems to be obsessing over this article and I don't know what to do about it. Please Help! Bg357 (talk) 05:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might also take a look at my talk page, where I'm being verbally assaulted by some weirdo (76.182.159.122) who thinks I'm somebody else. Bg357 (talk) 06:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stuyvesant High School has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

Re: University of Toronto

Sorry--lazy rollbacking on my part. freshacconcispeaktome 13:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. As I said in my edit summary, I thought it was random vandalism, too, until I checked the cited source. --ElKevbo (talk) 13:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Spellmanloves67

Thank you for your assitance with Spellmanloves67. I really don't understand what he's trying to accomplish. Sxbrown (talk) 04:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to dance!Spellmanloves67 (talk) 12:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ElKevbo, thank you for your warning reminder. Sometimes I fail to realize that I need to take the time to think and consider what I am going to say.Spellmanloves67 (talk) 02:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harvard transfer admissions

Please allow my few last changes to Harvard site. The fact is, it is a controversy and hopefully one that will continue to gain attention. Thank-you, John C. Pierce (talk) 19:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey ElKevbo

Thought you'd appreciate this. University of California, Riverside made FA! Have a drink on me. Amerique^dialectics 03:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rankings

Yeah, I got my copy this morning in the mail, online goes live this weekend I believe.

Also, if you look at the US News website, they are already updating all the methodology info--Finalnight (talk) 23:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Thanks for the quick reply and the even quicker updating of articles! --ElKevbo (talk) 00:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Information related to something you said in an edit summary on the List of unaccredited universities

See User talk:Orlady#Appreciation and the earlier unsigned message from 117.199.32.100 at User talk:Orlady#I need your help to check the Serampore University Fraud. --Orlady (talk) 13:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Improving Facebook to Featured Article status

I am currently working on improving Facebook to Featured Article status, and I noticed that you have made substantial contributions to the article recently. If you have time, I would appreciate it if you could help out and improve the article. Some comments by other editors have been left at the peer review, Wikipedia:Peer review/Facebook/archive2, so feel free to address those issues, also. Thanks for your time! Gary King (talk) 08:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reverts. Glad to see I'm not the only one watching this article :) I guess today is going to be a busy day on Wikipedia due to April 1, 2008? Gary King (talk) 02:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to improve the article to featured status, and I believe it is ready for that. But, I already have one nomination right now, so I can't nominate another article. If you think you can donate some time to the article's nomination, then I would be more than willing to help out. Please let me know. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 22:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Under Construction Tag

You removed my Under Construction Tag from Ryerson University and I'd like to request some clarification.

Template:Inuse lists that "If you wish to indicate that an article is being rebuilt over a longer period of time consider the Template:Underconstruction template. That template encourages others to edit the article while indicating that it is a work in progress." I am undertaking major edits on this article, and the Template was only in place for a short time since I last had the article as inuse (which I only use while actively editing). That line on the Inuse template page.

As well, the Template page for Under Construction states "If this article has not been edited in several days please remove this template."

I was not planning on leaving this tag up indefinitely, I am simply undergoing a major round of edits. Why was it removed? (Not saying that it was wrong to, I'm new and would love to better understand. I know the whole of wikipedia is a work in progress, but I understood that between major active edits that are part of a series of major edits, one would use this tag)

Thanks! Wjw0111 (talk) 02:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you really want to replace the template, please be my guest. I just don't see much point in it myself. --ElKevbo (talk) 04:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Teen Challenge

Please take your issues to the talk page. There is not copyright violation. This is all detailed on the talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahumanbean (talk • contribs) 02:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am saddened that despite your exhortations for me to "take [my] issues to the talk page," you yourself (a) refuse to participate in discussion on the Talk page and (b) persist in violating our copyright policies by blindly restoring material that is blatantly in violation of copyright. I have asked that you be blocked for a brief period of time as you continue to willfully violate our copyright policies. --ElKevbo (talk) 02:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your management of this situation. I have a lot to learn about Wikipedia dispute resolution processes,and some of the finer points of the rules (eg users right to edit own talk pages) and appreciate your involvement. I was a bit lost for a while there- I have not experienced such situations before.WotherspoonSmith (talk) 08:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

U of Miami - $ 1.4 Billion Endowment

Hi, I updated the endowment of U of Miami. However, I did not cite a source for that number: http://www6.miami.edu/UMH/CDA/UMH_Main/1,1770,2593-1;60269-3,00.html

Secondly, I edited information on Donna Shalala regarding the endowment, fixing faulty information that stated the university had yet to reach the $1 billion mark. It has. I am new to Wikipedia, so I did not know I had to cite the information. If this information could be updated with the aforementioned source, it would be greatly appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eastcoast76 (talk • contribs) 06:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I'm mistaken, that article states only that UM's capital campaign has reached $1.4 million. It's not referring to the endowment. --ElKevbo (talk) 12:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of List of YouTube celebrities

I have nominated List of YouTube celebrities, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of YouTube celebrities (3rd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Buc (talk) 16:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of List of YouTube celebrities

I have nominated List of YouTube celebrities, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of YouTube celebrities (3rd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Buc (talk) 12:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion

Hi, I deleted your subpage per your request. I also deleted the talk page User talk:ElKevbo/Wikindx even though you didn't request it. If you didn't want that deleted then just request so on my talk or at the administrator's noticeboard (linking here showing that its ok by me). I'm going to be away from an internet connection for a few hours so it might be quicker at AN. James086^{Talk | Email} 04:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much James! --ElKevbo (talk) 09:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endowment

I realized the link I provided does not go directly to the source, for some reason. If you scroll though the pages of the link I provided, you can see that Duke's endowment increased 25.6 percent from 5.9 billion, making it roughly 7.4 billion today. LaszloWalrus (talk) 17:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen that. Can you please provide a direct link to the page that cites the endowment (and just the endowment) as being 7.4 billion dollars? --ElKevbo (talk) 17:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ElKevbo sent me a warning

To me egurr but I can't quite figure out what the warning is. I have added a few links to the bottom of some colleges where I found useful external info on a couple of sites. Basically, there is no tuition info, enrollment info or other that is updated so I found a site that does that. Past that, I really haven't done a whole lot other than business stuff, and there I tend to write articles. Egurr (talk) 19:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to these edits: Historically black colleges and universities, Graduate school, List of colleges and universities in Georgia (U.S. state), List of colleges and universities in California and List of colleges and universities in Arizona. --ElKevbo (talk) 19:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I gotcha. I think the HCBU and the gradschools should stay. The Georgia and Arizona schools need some of the red removed (We need specific pages for these schools.) You can wipe out the link if you want, or find a better source, but I do think the lists inside states need to be more comprehensive. If you look at the bottom of all the state pages they are usually 2 year tech colleges, which are the fastest growing higher ed segment. Ultimately I work more with Voc ed kids in high school, and they end up at DeVry or ITT, nothing wrong with this but somehow they have to know there are more choices. Just my two cents and I'm open to suggestions. But let me know if you don't want the detailed college pages please so I don't was a ton of time on them. (We've all had that happen before and a page gets bounced. Egurr (talk) 20:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be much better if you could add information to the articles, perhaps using these links as references, than to add these links to a bunch of articles. It appears to be WP:SPAM and we're very sensitive to that as many people try to abuse Wikipedia to promote their own website(s) or those in which they have an interest. --ElKevbo (talk) 20:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats

		The University Barnstar
		For significantly improving several university-related articles. Cheers! Eustress (talk) 12:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --ElKevbo (talk) 16:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit reverts

Just FYI...I reminded [User:Macae]] about editing policies on Wikipedia, so hopefully the continuous reverts will discontinue (see User_talk:Macae and Talk:University_of_Texas_at_Austin). Thanks for your input. --Eustress (talk) 12:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hi, I have some concern about Queen's University, to me, this article seems to be overrated, we should keep watching people from doing that. Thanks. Firewal2 (talk) 00:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Spoken Web

Hi, This is not a personal web site or link that attract visitors to a web site Spoken-Web is a free Web portal, managing a wide range of online data-intensive content like news updates, weather, travel and business articles for computer users who are blind or visually impaired. I would be glad to receive your feedback. Please send me any comment or suggestion Thanks in advanced for your time Eyalshalom (talk) 12:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend taking up the subject on the Talk page of the relevant articles. You came up on my radar as you were (a) adding the same link to multiple articles (b) without any discussion or (c) history of editing those (or any other) articles. That typically indicates that someone is trying to promote a website or product. If that is not the case in this instance, please accept my apologies! --ElKevbo (talk) 13:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes

Well, in that case, the MOS is wrong. Colons, semicolons, and periods are almost never supposed to go outside quotes, and never in the circumstances I've corrected.

"Verifiability, not truth." Yipee. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 04:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how you can state that any publication's chosen style is "wrong." You may not *like* the chosen style (I don't care for this specific "rule," either) but that's a subjective judgement. The MOS ensures we're consistent and that's the important thing. If it really bothers you, you might want to take it up on the Talk page of the MOS. --ElKevbo (talk) 05:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is wrong (it's as wrong as using "alright" in place of "all right," which to my shock some otherwise intelligent people also dispute), but I can't change it. Nor do I really care to. Thanks for the message, I guess. I'll stop trying to help now. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 05:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not that it really matters, but you're right that 'wrong' is the, well, wrong word for it. What it is is substandard. And substandard usage frequently becomes standard, much to the chagrin of people like me who were taught and appreciate established norms. Anyway, cease and desist message received, loud and clear. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 08:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this is one of the national differences in usage and the rule here essentially follow the american practice. I agree with the view thatits not worth arguing about, as long as someone else is prepared to do the work of getting them consistent. DGG (talk) 19:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Departments

are there any academic departments at universities that you have in mind to add to WP? email is ok, or here. DGG (talk) 19:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon? I'm afraid I don't quite understand what it is you're asking... --ElKevbo (talk) 19:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Social network stuff

FYI, there's a relatively new site on Social network analysis software where you might direct folks sometimes. I don't really Watch it, altho it is on my watchlist. Cheers. Bellagio99 (talk) 01:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

American Intercontinental University

Excellent job navigating the treacherous shoals! Mysteryquest (talk) 01:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Editor's Barnstar
		For your excellent work in mediating an anon rebellion against the text in American Intercontinental University and managing to strike an equilibrium which has apparently held sway, I award you this barnstar. Keep up the good work!Mysteryquest (talk) 02:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Muchas gracias! --ElKevbo (talk) 19:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Distance Learning Edit

Hi. I had made some changes to the Distance Education but you removed them as commercial spam. The content that I added is very similar to the paragraph describing 'Second Life' in the same article - and that wasn't added by me. The content talked about WebEx, for which a proper article exists already in Wikipedia and it's use in education similar to Second Life. I added references to major US universities, and companies that are using this technology for educational purpose. The reference specifically cited them using it, so it wasn't just random. I'm curious why this is considered 'commerical spam'. H20rose (talk) 18:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)H20rose[reply]

The main thing that really tipped me off was that the only substantive reference provided was a reference to the company's website. If you can find an independent reference or two supporting the assertions then I would be okay with its inclusion. Of course, I'm not the only editor here so maybe others feel differently. It's definitely worth bringing up on the article's Talk page as I may be in the minority whereas other editors may be ok with the text as originally written. --ElKevbo (talk) 19:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's like saying that I can't quote Microsoft's website to show their strategic customer relationships? Webex has US revenues of $380 Million, 3500+ employees, and is OWNED by Cisco Systems. I would think that the reference should be considered legitimate especially since all of the text WAS going to educational universities or companies using their technology specifically for distance learning. Regardless, would a reference like the one I left and this and this and this and this be considered appropriate? H20rose (talk) 23:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

George Wythe College

Could you let me know what else could be added to the George Wythe College entry? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.39.136.74 (talk) 16:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend taking a look at this, particularly the example articles listed at the bottom. Those should give you plenty of ideas and inspiration! --ElKevbo (talk) 16:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Duke University FAR

Duke University has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. 152.2.128.80 (talk) 01:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rankings in lead

There is a debate at WT:UNI#Rankings in lead about the consensus for including or excluding rankings from the lead of university articles. Your input would be appreciated. Madcoverboy (talk) 18:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scrollbar refs

Please stop placing refs in scroll boxes. It's a severe usability problem. I'd be happy to dig up the older conversations about this, including the deleted template that automatically did this, if you'd like more information. --ElKevbo (talk) 17:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay...another user already informed me of the past discussions regarding the scrollboxes. It's too bad because I think it clears up a lot of clutter and still has functionality, but I'll bank on the prior consensus you're referring to. Thanks. --Eustress (talk) 17:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. No hard feelings? I appreciate the initiative and boldness! --ElKevbo (talk) 18:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question about the warning you left me?

Hi there, you left me a note saying that you had removed some of the links I posted to UC Davis and the Davis, California external links. I was wondering why you left one of the links and removed the others? There are two resources I linked in: one was specifically for Davis, CA and the other was specifically for UC Davis, but I thought they were both relevant so I linked in both of them to each page. In retrospect, it probably would have been enough just to include the Davis link on the Davis page and the UCD link on the UCD page, but hindsight is always 20/20 :) Anyway, you deleted both links from UC Davis and left the UC Davis resource link on the Davis page when the other link is more relevant. Why was that? Thanks! --PatienceIsAVirtue (talk) 20:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like I just missed that link and would have deleted it if I had noticed it. --ElKevbo (talk) 20:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kansas Jayhawks

Thanks for joining the discussion at Kansas Jayhawks, wondering what you think the best course of action is to deal with the continued edit warring. Do we let people remove information sourced with reliable third-party sources? It seems to me consensus must be formed to remove the information, consensus is not need to keep it in the article. Anyways, I've left it removed for now, I've already gotten too close to edit warring. Grey Wanderer | Talk 20:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and move it the article specific to the basketball team. It probably belongs there anyway. If editors continue warring once the info is in that article then we'll take it from there. --ElKevbo (talk) 21:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support

Thanks for your support in restoring my reverted edit. Thanks Rjwilmsi 17:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ElKevbo, if you thought the change was so critical, why had you not made that change months ago, along with fixing all the other date issues in the article? Gimmetrow 18:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you're asking. I saw that you had changed at least one date such that it was no longer formatted correctly and thus I reverted it. This is not a huge issue by any means nor is it all personal. You're even free to change to a different date format as long it's one that is supported by the automatic date parser. I think what caught my eye is that one or more of the changes you made omitted a crucial comma. --ElKevbo (talk) 20:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IELTS

Would you take a look at the external link section at IELTS to see if the links being added are suitable resources? There's a history of their removal (including a discussion on Talk:IELTS, an existing link to DMOZ and some recent link warring...I checked them, but just wasn't sure of their value. Thanks. Flowanda | Talk 05:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You reported me for violation of 3RR, but not the other guy. Why?

I was blocked on August 2 after you reported me for violation of the 3RR rule in regard to edits I made to the University of Florida article. Fair enough. However, you singled me out. Fliry Vorru was also in violation of the 3RR for reverting my edits to the same article, and you issued him a warning, but you did not report him. Why the disparate treatment?Ufuncecu (talk) 01:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I misread the edit history of the article, he or she didn't violate the rule. Multiple editors reverted your edits, not just Fliry Vorru. --ElKevbo (talk) 03:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to count Fliry Vorru's reverts one more time. Let me help:

03:37, 2 August 2008 Fliry Vorru (Talk | contribs) (69,561 bytes) (Undid revision 229347757 by Ufuncecu (talk) This is ridiculous.) (undo)
04:49, 2 August 2008 Fliry Vorru (Talk | contribs) (69,561 bytes) (Undid revision 229351795 by Ufuncecu (talk) Same old revert) (undo)
05:01, 2 August 2008 Fliry Vorru (Talk | contribs) (69,561 bytes) (Undid revision 229357158 by Ufuncecu (talk) Undone for FINAL time. Please refer to discussion.) (undo)
14:03, 2 August 2008 Fliry Vorru (Talk | contribs) (69,561 bytes) (Undid revision 229392691 by 69.23.202.204 (talk) This addition is in discussion. See the Talk page for further info.) (undo)

That adds up to four every time you count it. It really irks me that I was singled out. Be more careful next time.Ufuncecu (talk) 03:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ok. That appears to have been after I stopped monitoring the article closely (I don't live in Wikipedia!). I would also likely cut him or her some slack as the same edits were being made by anonymous editors and at a certain point the same undiscussed edits made over and over after being reverted by multiple editors in good standing becomes simple vandalism. You reverted *six* times and that's very, very noticeable.

In all honesty, no one has come out of this edit war smelling like roses. It's being discussed and it looks like positive progress is being made. I've already moved on and I hope that you can, too. No hard feelings? --ElKevbo (talk) 03:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michigan Wolverines men's basketball

I am writing you because you are one of the leaders in edit count at Michigan Wolverines. Do you understand the code for infobox jerseys and know the details of the Michigan color schemes? I have just started Michigan Wolverines men's basketball.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that I can help you figure out the template but I'm afraid that I don't know anything about the color schemes for Michigan. If you can figure out the color schemes then together we can figure out how to get them to be displayed in Wikipedia! --ElKevbo (talk) 12:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MIT

Given the quality of your contributions to a variety of education-related articles, I would like to solicit your feedback on MIT's current article at the peer review for whatever changes you feel would be necessary to secure your support at a future WP:FAC. Madcoverboy (talk) 16:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DA

Thanks for your concern, ElKevbo. FA guidelines deal only with additional requirements, beyond the policies and guidelines that apply to all WP articles. They do not deal with date autoformatting.

In a character-limited edit summary it's hard to do more than point to a page, and you can't link to it. DA is optional at the moment, although there are moves to deprecate it, which I think would improve the project. If anyone objects to removal, I'm quite happy to revert a page. You can find much discourse at MOSNUM talk.

This is the standard message to inform users:

Dear fellow contributors

MOSNUM no longer encourages date-autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional, after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.

There are at least six disadvantages of using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:

Disadvantages of date-autoformatting

(1) In-house only

(a) It works only for registered (Wikipedian) users who have set their date preferences and are logged in.
(b) To our readers out there, it displays all-too-common inconsistencies in raw formatting in bright-blue underlined text, yet conceals them from WPians who are logged in and have chosen preferences.

(2) Avoids what are merely trivial differences

(a) It is trivial whether the order is day–month or month–day. It is more trivial than color/colour and realise/realize, yet our consistency-within-article policy on spelling (WP:ENGVAR) has worked very well. English-speakers readily recognise both date formats; all dates after our signatures are international, and no one objects.

(3) Colour-clutter: the bright-blue underlining of all dates

(a) It dilutes the impact of high-value links.
(b) It makes the text slightly harder to read.
(c) It doesn't improve the appearance of the page.

(4) Typos and misunderstood coding

(a) There's a disappointing error-rate in keying in the auto-function; not bracketing the year, and enclosing the whole date in one set of brackets, are examples.
(b) Once autoformatting is removed, mixtures of US and international formats are revealed in display mode, where they are much easier for WPians to pick up than in edit mode; so is the use of the wrong format in country-related articles.
(c) Many WPians don't understand date-autoformatting—in particular, how if differs from ordinary linking; often it's applied simply because it's part of the furniture.

(5) Edit-mode clutter

(a) It's more work to enter an autoformatted date, and it doesn't make the edit-mode text any easier to read for subsequent editors.

(6) Limited application

(a) It's incompatible with date ranges ("January 3–9, 1998", or "3–9 January 1998", and "February–April 2006") and slashed dates ("the night of May 21/22", or "... 21/22 May").
(b) By policy, we avoid date autoformatting in such places as quotations; the removal of autoformatting avoids this inconsistency.

Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors, and the consensus against the use of date-autoformatting is overwhelming. I seek in-principle consensus here for the removal of date autoformatting from the main text of articles related to this WikiProject, using a script; such a move would also be sensitive to local objections on any article talk page. The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links.

You may wish to peruse the following capped text to compare two examples, with and without date autoformatting. The DA is set at international style—the one pertaining in this particular article—to show all WPians how the blue dates are displayed to visitors. MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether or not dates are autoformatted, analogous to our highly successful guidelines for the use of varieties of English. The choice of style is audited during the running of the script to ensure that it is appropriate to the article (i.e., consistent, and country-related where appropriate).

Two examples for comparison

EXAMPLE 1 Original

Marshal Suchet had received orders from Napoleon to commence operations on 14 June; and by rapid marches to secure the mountain passes in the Valais and in Savoy (then part of the Kingdom of Sardinia), and close them against the Austrians. On 15 June, his troops advanced at all points for the purpose of gaining the frontier from Montmeilian, as far as Geneva; which he invested. Thence he purposed to obtain possession of the important passes of Meillerie and St. Maurice; and in this way to check the advance of the Austrian columns from the Valais. At Meillerie the French were met and driven back by the advanced guard of the Austrian right column, on 21 June. By means of forced marches the whole of this column, which Baron Frimont himself accompanied, reached the Arve on 27 June.^[1] The left column, under Count Bubna, crossed Mount Cenis on 24 June and 25 June. On 28 June, the column was sharply opposed by the French at Conflans; of which place, however, the Austrians succeeded in gaining possession.^[2]

To secure the passage of the river Arve the advanced guard of the right column detached, on 27 June, to Bonneville, on its left; but the French, who had already fortified this place, maintained a stout resistance. In the mean time, however, the Austrians gained possession of the passage at Carrouge; by which means the French were placed under the necessity of evacuating Bonneville, and abandoning the valley of the Arve. The Austrian column now passed Geneva, and drove the French from the heights of Grand Saconex and from St. Genix. On 29 June, this part of the Austrian army moved towards the Jura; and, on 21 July, it ...

DA-free

Marshal Suchet had received orders from Napoleon to commence operations on 14 June; and by rapid marches to secure the mountain passes in the Valais and in Savoy (then part of the Kingdom of Sardinia), and close them against the Austrians. On 15 June, his troops advanced at all points for the purpose of gaining the frontier from Montmeilian, as far as Geneva; which he invested. Thence he purposed to obtain possession of the important passes of Meillerie and St. Maurice; and in this way to check the advance of the Austrian columns from the Valais. At Meillerie the French were met and driven back by the advanced guard of the Austrian right column, on 21 June. By means of forced marches the whole of this column, which Baron Frimont himself accompanied, reached the Arve on 27 June.^[1] The left column, under Count Bubna, crossed Mount Cenis on 24 and 25 June. On 28 June, the column was sharply opposed by the French at Conflans; of which place, however, the Austrians succeeded in gaining possession.^[2]

To secure the passage of the river Arve the advanced guard of the right column detached, on 27 June, to Bonneville, on its left; but the French, who had already fortified this place, maintained a stout resistance. In the mean time, however, the Austrians gained possession of the passage at Carrouge; by which means the French were placed under the necessity of evacuating Bonneville, and abandoning the valley of the Arve. The Austrian column now passed Geneva, and drove the French from the heights of Grand Saconex and from St. Genix. On 29 June, this part of the Austrian army moved towards the Jura; and, on 21 July, it ...

EXAMPLE 2 Original

On 5 July the main body of the Bavarian Army reached Chalons; in the vicinity of which it remained during 6 June. On this day, its advanced posts communicated, by Epernay, with the Prussian Army. On 7 July Prince Wrede received intelligence of the Convention of Paris, and at the same time, directions to move towards the Loire. On 8 July Lieutenant General Czernitscheff fell in with the French between St. Prix and Montmirail; and drove him across the Morin, towards the Seine. Previously to the arrival of the IV (Bavarian) Corps at Château-Thierry; the French garrison had abandoned the place, leaving behind it several pieces of cannon, with ammunition. On 10 July, the Bavarian Army took up a position between the Seine and the Marne; and Prince Wrede's Headquarters were at La Ferté-sous-Jouarre.

DA-free

On 5 July the main body of the Bavarian Army reached Chalons; in the vicinity of which it remained during 6 June. On this day, its advanced posts communicated, by Epernay, with the Prussian Army. On 7 July Prince Wrede received intelligence of the Convention of Paris, and at the same time, directions to move towards the Loire. On 8 July Lieutenant General Czernitscheff fell in with the French between St. Prix and Montmirail; and drove him across the Morin, towards the Seine. Previously to the arrival of the IV (Bavarian) Corps at Château-Thierry; the French garrison had abandoned the place, leaving behind it several pieces of cannon, with ammunition. On 10 July, the Bavarian Army took up a position between the Seine and the Marne; and Prince Wrede's Headquarters were at La Ferté-sous-Jouarre.

I'd be pleased to receive your feedback and/or queries. Tony (talk) 00:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can strengthen your points by cleaning them up a bit. Specifically, the phrase "It works only for the WP 'elite'" is not only loaded language but it completely fails to make the real point that only logged in editors benefit from autoformatting. It would also be helpful to either provide support for the claim that "It causes visitors to query why dates are bright-blue and underlined" or remove it; without evidence, it seems like it was just made up to add even more weight to the arguments against autoformatting. Changing those would help clean things up a bit and remove some of the unfortunate emotional language from your message.

On a side note, I am disappointed that the automatic formatting of dates has become hopelessly conflated with linking dates. It appears that this conflation is blamed on one or more developers but it remains a huge disappointment nonetheless. I would support autoformatting if these two issues could be separated as I completely agree that linking most dates is silly at best and confusing at worst. --ElKevbo (talk) 02:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And are you sure that your example above is legitimate? Have we ever told editors to link dates that only consist of a month and a day without the year? I could have sworn that the recommendation was only to link dates with all three elements. I don't see how dates could be autoformatted without the year present. Please double check that example to ensure you aren't presenting a poor or incorrect example to strengthen your argument. --ElKevbo (talk) 02:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks heaps for your reply, ElKevbo. I've removed both of those points from the info package in response to your suggestions. Nice.

Day–month (or month–day) are part of the autoformatting system; until about a year ago, we were required to autoformat them along with the full three-component dates. They're part of the deal. See MOSNUM on "Date autoformatting".

Yeah, I used to be disappointed at the entanglement of autoformatting and linking, but since the failed Bugzilla fiasco (which went utterly nowhere despite a huge effort), I've realised that autoformatting is a toy in search of a problem. So I guess I'm glad we failed to get WikiMedia to decouple the functions, because that will be its death-knell. The other disadvantages can now be nullified by taking the WYKIWYG approach (What You Key in Is What You Get), and simplicity, as it usually does, wins out. I wonder who minds the binary scheme on WP; we cope superbly well with what is essentially a binary scheme for spelling, based on the consistent-within-article principle.

Please stay in touch if you have further ideas. At MOSNUM talk there's a push now to generally deprecate the use of autoformatting; looks like succeeding, although it's too early to make a call at this stage. You may be interested in perusing the consensus page. Tony (talk) 08:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UCI

I understand your rationale for your edit (i.e. removing the ranking information from the introductory section because it is repetitious), but I strongly disagree with it for the following reasons. (1) The information you removed, for the most part, is not repetitious. Nowhere else in the article is there mention of the fact that UCI is ranked 4th of all of the UCs. Additionally, there is no mention of UCI being a Public Ivy anywhere else in the article. (2) Also, you failed to give a reason why you believe this information doesn't belong in the intro-section. If you would like to expand on this point, I will be more than willing to listen. However, as it stands, your edit simply removed pertinent content from the article, from a section that it appropriately belongs in. ŁittleÄlien¹⁸² (_talk\^contribs) 02:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:PRESTIGE; it's long settled that rankings and similar language needlessly trumpeting "quality" don't belong in the lead. That should be doubly true for the sham listing published each by US News and World Report to sell magazines. If an institution is good, then demonstrate it to readers through prose. --ElKevbo (talk) 03:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Though I would disagree that the information was "needlessly trumpeting 'quality'" and, furthermore, I think that it belongs elsewhere in the article. The information you removed were neither "vague terms of praise" nor was it imprecise or dishonest. You may feel that the rankings are a sham, but the general wikipedia consensus is that this information is pertinent and important (i.e. it can be found in the articles of most top universities). Why would you remove this information entirely --despite the fact that you consider it a "sham"-- when you know that it is contained in almost every "top university" article? ŁittleÄlien¹⁸² (_talk\^contribs) 03:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sourced info is in the article. --ElKevbo (talk) 05:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UNC-CH

Hi, after reading the discussion page, I agreed with Holla213. It seems the edits were sensible, verifiable, and in good faith. They definitely were accurate and concise. I changed them back. If you have any questions, let's please take it to the discussion page. Recardoz (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reported Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Holla213 Kww (talk) 19:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was doing the exact same thing at the exact same time. GMTA. :) --ElKevbo (talk) 19:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Might as well fix it again ... I can argue that I'm reverting block evasion, but I'd rather not brush up against 3RR if I can avoid it.Kww (talk) 19:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Metros got it. Such a silly, stupid thing to edit war, create sock puppets, and get blocked for... :( --ElKevbo (talk) 19:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The IP is registered to the Harvard Extension Office ... perhaps he as a vested interest.Kww (talk) 19:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thought you two would be interested in Special:Contributions/Extensiontf. Do those contributions look like anyone else's? Metros (talk) 20:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh... Assuming that Kww is correct, we need to keep a better eye on that editor's favorite articles, particularly the Harvard Extension Office. Looks like a COI issue at the very least... --ElKevbo (talk) 20:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At first, I was going to sorta ignore this since this was back in June and I thought Holla213 was fairly new, but now I see this. Does this look like socking to you guys? Should we set a checkuser up? Metros (talk) 20:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, definitely looks like socking. I was hoping that his or her recent challenges were merely the result of being blocked for 3RR and resulting frustration. Long-term, calculated sockpuppetry is another matter altogether. :(

Would you like to initiate the case or should I? --ElKevbo (talk) 20:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all tired out from SSP and 3RR reports ... I'll be more than happy to let one of you handle this report, but I'm all in favor of it being done.Kww (talk) 20:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done: Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Extensiontf. Metros (talk) 20:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much Metros! --ElKevbo (talk) 20:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

University EL & Cleanup Barnstar

		The Editor's Barnstar
		I hereby award you this barnstar for your tireless efforts to rid university articles of boosterism and extraneous links. Madcoverboy (talk) 06:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]