User talk:ElKevbo/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

More than you are aware of

Please also see List of IRA Chiefs of Staff. Note that Adams being CoS is referenced by three sources, and includes a denial from Adams as a footnote which could be somewhere more prominent possibly. So that's three sources saying he was, and a denial from Adams. Now see this version, quite a difference isn't there? One Night In Hackney303 23:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Because I have no barnstars to give, nor am I near any barns from which to steal any...

For your tireless and totally uncompensated efforts against the vandalism, stupidity, and other assorted crap that have been almost magnetically drawn to Virginia Tech-related articles since news of the massacre started to filter onto Wikipedia, I award you a bonus of ten Norton dollars, redeemable in gold from His Imperial Majesty's Treasury at some point in the indeterminate future. --Dynaflow 13:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Sweet. With the American dollar continuing to lose value I desperately need to diversify my portfolio in foreign cash. :)
Thanks! --ElKevbo 14:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

iraq war casualties

The number is good enough for the Iraq War article, so it's good for the GWB article too. --CTho 00:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Stoopid Monkey Logos

As you are probably aware, the Stoop!d Monkey page was the subject of an AfD and the result was, of course, "Keep". Currently, the logos are a point of contention with myself saying that they were part of the "Keep", while User:Calton saying they were to be dropped and the article was to remain.

I asked the admin who closed the AfD his opinion and he replied, "I just said the article was to be kept, I don't know about the logos". There wasn't a decision given on the logos and in the AfD only 3 users said the logos should go, only 1 said keep the article, lose the logos.

I am not sure how to handle this, but since the admin who closed the AfD made no decision and the AfD wasn't about the logos in the first place (and the majority said to keep the logos if you want to be picky about it, as far as I can tell).

This wasn't an issue from April 16th (immediately after the AfD) to May 3rd when User:Calton realized that I was blocked for 48hours (not related to this) and I couldn't revert his changes. User:Calton had no interest and made no changes on the page itself or the talk page during that time. So, to me, his initial revert on May 3rd was done because of my block.

I have asked two admins (in case one is offline) to revert his changes and put a block on the page until this can be worked out. I am also asking you, since you contributed to the AfD, what your opinion is on just the logos themselves. I appericate you input one way or the other. Thanks...SVRTVDude (VT)

Thanks for your help on the Stoopid Monkey page. Calton retorted by calling me "Mr. Low Impulse Control Stalker", to which I had a good laugh at. Can you be a stalker and have low impluse control? :o)
Anywho, I think I am going to move the Stoopid Monkey lines/links and incorporate them into the Robot Chicken episode list. That should work for everyone. Have a good rest of your weekend....SVRTVDude (VT) 22:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good. Happy editing! --ElKevbo 22:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The talk entry is up...

on the University of Phoenix link...we can talk about it over there, but wanted to reply here first. Flowanda 15:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much! --ElKevbo 15:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandal revert

Thanks. GDonato (talk) 16:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Welcome! --ElKevbo 16:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks ElKevbo for keeping an eye on the Social Networks page. I've been on holiday for the past 10 days. Bellagio99 19:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. It's a group effort, of course. :) --ElKevbo 19:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


Deuce22

Yeah, I figure he/she's simply not reading the warnings or ignoring them, but I figured I'd at least going through the motions so it goes past the level 4 warning. But really, if a block doesn't get the message through, I don't know what will. --Ytny (talk) 03:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Jocelyne

There was a first DRV, resulting in overturn, and a second AFD, resultnig in no consensus, here. This lack of consensus is being endorsed. HTH! >Radiant< 16:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha. Twisted path to reach that result. :) Thanks for setting me straight! --ElKevbo 16:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

plagiarism source

Hi ElKevbo,

Did you happen to see my post on Talk:Plagiarism about Cassandra Clare citations? I tried to find if there had been consensus reached before but couldn't, and I didn't know if it was a big enough concern. Thanks. Flowanda 18:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

ANI

Thanks for the notification, I've responded. One Night In Hackney303 10:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Washington College Article & Image

As I mentioned on ESkog's page, I have put in to kuru (the admin who currently oversaw this months ago) to protect the articles in question, as it seems no one wants to use the discussion page. The conflict seems to be revolving around someone's person thought that "images" can not be used as references. Who made this rule up in the past 2/3 months since that revision was made? D-Hell-pers 03:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen you make an effort to use the Talk page, either. Take the initiative! Use the Talk page instead of relying on edit summaries. --ElKevbo 03:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It's hard to rely on the discussion page when many users just edit to what they see fit. Normally, someone adds the section back and the editor who deleted information moves on. This is the first time in several months that a person was persistent on removing this section, not to mention making up new "wikipedia rules" to back his bark. D-Hell-pers 03:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it too much. Apparently there are still a few experienced editors keeping an eye on this article. I don't know if the other editor is "right" but I'm sure that consensus will win out the day. --ElKevbo 03:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


Coalition Against Militarism in Our Schools

Hello,

I've removed your proposed deletion tag from this article, as it appears to have been cleaned up quite a bit by Terjen since the tag was initially placed there. You may, of course, nominate the article for AfD in response to this removal if you wish.

Thanks, JavaTenor 09:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

FA candidate comments fixed

Sorry. I was making changes when you guys commented. In the merging I missed that. My bad! Edit was not in bad faith, just in stupidity! What do you expect from a mere Aggie?  :-) — BQZip01 — talk 13:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem! I was sure it was just a mistake as you made some pretty significant edits. --ElKevbo 14:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

This page is deliberately blank

Is your main page really blank if it has "This page is deliberately blank" on it? — BQZip01 — talk 13:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Yup. Just like the government manuals and documents that have that phrase printed on "blank" pages. :) --ElKevbo 14:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Why the ATM revert?

Hi... I see you reverted the edits to Asynchronous Transfer Mode by User talk:Arunachalammanohar -- but why? It looks like a valid contribution, and your change description doesn't give a reason, and your message to Arun... doesn't seem to fit his contribution at all. (The warning talks about external links, and there are none in his edits.) Paul Koning 15:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Never mind. I looked more closely. I see the external links now. Sorry. I think I'll re-add Arun's text with the external links removed. Paul Koning 15:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
    • That user added a bunch of spam links to several articles and I may have missed some things as I busily cleaned up after him or her. I apologize if I caused any confusion or additional work! --ElKevbo 15:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Response

... on my Talk page! :) Joie de Vivre 20:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


Toby Meltzer

Seeking assistance. One editor is including multiple extraordinary claims about Meltzer's career that do not have multiple verifiable sources.

"Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple reliable sources, especially regarding scientific or medical topics, historical events, politically charged issues, and biographies of living people."

Would you take a look in at Talk:Toby Meltzer? Thank you! Joie de Vivre 19:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Facebook

I see that you are overhauling the Facebook article. Could you please look over the April Fools section and the discussion on the talk page. Your input would be appreciated. Gdo01 21:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Not overhauling - not right now, at least. Just hit a few of the most obvious sections. I'll take a look at the Talk page and offer constructive input if I have any to share. --ElKevbo 21:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

University High School (Los Angeles, California) and the ANI

Okay, this is becoming really brutal. There are lots of revertings going on. WhisperToMe 22:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Then request it be protected. I just think that jumping straight to ANI for a dispute between a handful of editors in a low-traffic article is likely premature. If it's so bad that it needs immediate admin attention then I would expect experienced editors like yourself and SwatJester to make specific recommendations at ANI. Or, more likely, report the problem at 3RR or RFP as appropriate and then continue the dispute resolution process as appropriate. If these editors are truly problematic (history of blocks, sockpuppets, etc.) then that should be mentioned.
It just seems like a garden variety heated content dispute and I don't see why that should be immediately posted to ANI. --ElKevbo 22:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
You know what? Fuck it. The trolls win, I'm out. I'm not touching that article again, nor am I touching the AN/I section again. If something this mind numbingly simple can't be dealt with intelligently, and after repeated attempts she can't come up with a good source for it by now, it's not going to get done, and I just don't care anymore. I've got too much other shit to deal with at the moment, and if I continue on in this dispute, and Miss Mondegreen keeps trolling me the way she's been (successfully) doing, I'm liable to do some rouge shit, and then we're really in a bad spot.

I'm quite disappointed that you'd think that I was trying to WP:OWN the article though. I'd think you'd know my editing better than that to make that kind of accusation. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 00:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Take a break, man! It's not worth getting this worked up about an article about an obscure high school. --ElKevbo 11:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


I think

Hey, I saw you had a vandalism issue with wiki member 72.209.34.111‎. I think that IP may be a shared computer, however I am not quite sure. I figure if a few people watch over the IP we can get a grip on what the deal may be. I'm not quite sure how to get an abuser blocked anyway, LOL. Hellswasteland 17:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a real thing

My nephew is a WMU student. Everyone is being hush hush. Don't accuse me of vandalism just because you're not informed. James Roberts 18:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe you but until you can provide a source it doesn't matter. If you can cite a reliable source, then it might belong in the article. If you can't, then it doesn't belong. --ElKevbo 18:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
What the fuck? People add unsourced shit to the wikipedia all the time. Why the fuck are you picking on me? Shit, god forbid there be something unsourced about a fucking current event. They should have put you in charge during the Pearl Harbor bombings... your response time would have been bloody brilliant. James Roberts 19:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Just because it happens in other article doesn't make it acceptable. And your Pearl Harbor statement...doesn't even make sense. --ElKevbo 19:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to punch you in the ovaries

That's right. Right in the babymaker. Get a fucking life. James Roberts 19:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Well that's not very nice! --ElKevbo 19:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
CAPTAIN FACEBOOK TO THE RESCUE. Jesus, at least you could babysit an article that wasn't so queer, like a sport or something. Sport is what happens when men go outside. Look into it. OH BURN. James Roberts 19:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Please do not mistake my playful "ribs" as warning-deeming "personal attacks". Please lighten up, good sir. I respect you wholeheartedly. James Roberts 19:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Get your own entry

The assignment was not to edit another person's wiki, it was to make your own. I created the reserve design page entry on the 23rd of May, making it my project, not yours. Get your own topic.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Flying mermaid (talk • contribs) 09:24, May 25, 2007

First off, you may be under the impression that I am a student in your class; I am not. Second, no one in Wikipedia owns an article. As noted at the bottom of the "Editing" page, your contributions are licensed under the GFDL and you have no right to blank information from an article to which other editors have contributed. I don't know whether the article you initially wrote is terribly good or if it is, as another editor has wondered, virtually identical to another article and thus should be merged or deleted. But this isn't just some class assignment - this is a large community with a goal and cultural norms. Aggression ("Get your own topic") and ownership of articles are not values we cherish or tolerate. --ElKevbo 14:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

On the discussion page, you did in fact say that you were doing this for a class project:


Talk:Reserve Design From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search

[edit] Salvaging this article

I am not sure what this article is supposed to be about based on what is written now. Its not sourced very well and lacks context. Can it be re-written? —Gaff ταλκ 02:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I am in the middle of putting it up. It will be done tonight. This is the first time I have used Wikipedia so it is slow going. There will be references, I just haven't figured out how to put them up.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Flying mermaid (talk • contribs) 22:23, May 24, 2007.

Do you happen to be posting this for a class project?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 169.233.59.58 (talk • contribs) 23:05, May 24, 2007.
Yes. --ElKevbo 04:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

So either you were lying or didn't understand the question.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Flying mermaid (talk • contribs) 10:39, May 25, 2007

If you had actually followed the link you would have seen that I was linking to your response and I was TRYING TO HELP YOU OUT. --ElKevbo 15:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Reverted self-revert

Oops. Thanks for sorting out this, which unbeknownst to me actually re-instated the domain spamlink. I think "D'oh!" is in order. Cheers. Ref (chew)(do) 19:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem! :) --ElKevbo 21:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Star Wars: The Clone Wars

Sorry about that; I wasn't aware of the date policy. And I was mainly labelling the edits as bad because of the "and Thomas Miller as Samoht Skywalker" that got thrown into the article by an unregistered user... and, yeah, because I didn't know about the date thing. --Hotdoglives 01:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


Second nominations

The correct wikitext is the very simple {{subst:afd|Jocelyne Couture-Nowak 2nd nom}}. This is explained in the documentation for Template:afd. There is no need to substitute twice, and depositing masses of wikitext into the start of an article like this is exactly what that template avoids doing. Uncle G 21:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Appreciate the heads up! --ElKevbo 21:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Missing image Image:PolishSalute.jpg

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:PolishSalute.jpg, by Strangerer, another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:PolishSalute.jpg is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Image:PolishSalute.jpg, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Image:PolishSalute.jpg itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 04:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Wall Street Journal - India Edition

Why dont you remove the CNN-IBN link at the bottom of the CNN page? Tri400 19:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Because I don't monitor that article. It does appear a bit suspicious so if you know more about it, please contribute! --ElKevbo 19:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Then what gives u the right to remove the WSJ-HT edition? Since listing CNN-IBN is ok what's wrong with listing WSJ-HT? Isnt CNN-IBN a partnership between an American Network and an Indian network? And WJS-HT [LiveMint.com] a partnership between a high quality, objective, American publication and an Indian Tabloid? The fact that WSJ chose Hindustan Times as their official partner in India is worth a page on its own. Tri400 01:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Please provide reputable, reliable sources verifying that LiveMint.com is indeed the "Indian Edition" of the WSJ. --ElKevbo 02:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Godsmack

Hey i'm new to all this so i'm Just wondering why you got rid of the DVD section --Will Scot 55 04:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that! It looks like I may accidentally removed it as I was making some significant edits to the article. Go ahead and throw it back in but please edit it down and correct the grammar. Thanks for asking and catching my mistake! --ElKevbo 06:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Well i'm trying to get info for the other section so i'll add it back once I add more to the article --Will Scot 55 03:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Numbers in NFL infoboxes

Please allow the number to stay on Manning's page where it is, and on all pages that have them when you see them. I'm hoping it becomes more as time goes on. It is my belief that a player's number is a big part of his image when it comes to fans, and is therefore very relevant to every player's article. Unfortunately the NFL infobox template does not accommodate this, but I think the way I've done it is a very good way of presenting the information. It's similar to how the MLB infoboxes look, you'll notice. I realize it is not how the template was originally intended, but viewers of the article don't see the "Name=" part of the infobox, they only see that bar, and I don't think it hurts to have his number there too. In fact, I think it's pretty good looking and it's relevant. What do you think?Chris Nelson 04:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Get consensus here to add a new field to the template instead of misusing an existing field, please. --ElKevbo 04:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Well not many people there seem to care. What we should do is name a Number or JerseyNumber field in the info box, and make it so that it is placed where I have it, kind of like in this template. What should I do?Chris Nelson 04:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Plus I mean... I'm not really sure how big a deal it is if it's "misused." What if the field was "NameandNumber"? Then it'd be okay. I mean really, the way I've done it causes no harm and only helps the article. A viewer of the article doesn't know the bar was originally intended for "Name". They'll only see what's in the infobox on article itself, which looks good and provides good information.Chris Nelson 04:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I'd suggest making one more attempt to get the template changed and a number field added. If there is little or no discussion, request the (protected) template be edited by an administrator to add the field. --ElKevbo 15:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


deletion of content

ELKEVBO - please do not add the pages removed from Xaverian High School. Some of the material contanined was from internal correspondance and not intended for publication. the names of distingished faculty and alumni is not subjective by the person loggin in but must be taken only from the official list which already has a link to it.

Please contact support@xaverian.org for any further information you may require.

Huh? --ElKevbo 20:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
ElKevbo, I just looked at the edit history for Xaverian High School and I admit it is one of the stranger revision trails I've seen. Couple that with the misspellings and weird word choice in the message above, it's even stranger. My guess is that Xaverianhs is someone from the school (given the username and email address) that has a very liberal sense of copyright violation and a strong sense of information control. The original contributor(s) may have used the school's website and other Xaverian related sites as a starting point, and carefully summarized and reworded everything to not violate copyright (and they appear to have at least provided the sites as references to cover themselves), but Xaverianhs objects to even this.
Xaverianhs may be someone in the technology department there who is very sensitive about content being lifted from their site out of its control. Since most of the copy is unsourced they are technically correct (about it being removed), and per WP policy it should either be sourced sufficiently or removed. Also, sources other than the school's website should be used. This may be a challenge, however, since I had trouble finding any useful information any place else on the Internet. It's almost as if XHS has thoroughly scrubbed the Internet of unofficial data about itself (which it very well may have done). Note the statement on its website ("XAVERIAN.ORG is the ONLY OFFICIALLY SANCTIONED SITE OF XAVERIAN HIGH SCHOOL. Any .COM site bearing the Xaverian name is NOT ours and does NOT reflect Xaverian High School's policies, standards or interests.") and how assiduously it has removed and replaced alumni names from the article. It appears they are very serious about maintaining tight control of school info. I'm unsure what Xaverianhs thinks is confidential material, too, since all the information appears to come from publicly accessible places.
I found a clear WP:COPYVIO in the contested copy, but curiously it's not from XHS's site— "Founded in 1957, Xaverian High School is part of an international network of schools sponsored by the Xaverian Brothers and is one of New York City's leading college-preparatory schools for young men. Rooted in the missionary charism of St. Francis Xavier and consistent with the principles and commitment of the founder of the Xaverian Brothers in America, Theodore Ryken, . . ." is verbatim from Private School Review, which is about the only non-XHS website that has information about the school.
Unfortunately, the situation is aggravated by Xaverianhs' difficulty in communicating clearly and resulting strange messages and edit summaries (possibly due to lack of familiarity with WP tools and methods?). My suggestion is rewrite the article with only basic information obtained from the school website, and ensure that 95% of the rest is from non-XHS sources. Source and cite everything so Xaverianhs cannot remove it and the edit war can stop. Good luck.
—  Jim Dunning  talk  :  04:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Linking dates

Hi. In this edit you delinked a month-day date. Actually, month-day (or day-month) dates should stay linked because it allows the readers date preferences to work. I, for example, have mine set to read day-month, although I believe month-day is the default. Natalie 09:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, you're right. Never noticed that before. Thanks for the tip! --ElKevbo 09:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Crests

Crests are used in the same sections in other schools and I liked the look of them - colour and movement. Please explain fair use guidelines and fair use rationales. 203.17.19.98 17:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline should be able to answer your questions about fair use and Wikipedia. In a nutshell, since you're using someone else's copyrighted images, you have to explain why it's necessary to use those images. There's a bit more to it than that but it's explained at the link just listed. --ElKevbo 17:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Structural Cohesion

Thanks for your note. Is this what you are referring to?

You may cite your own publications just as you'd cite anyone else's, but make sure your material is relevant and that you're regarded as a reliable source for the purposes of Wikipedia. Be careful about excessive citation of your own work, to avoid the appearance of self-promotion. When in doubt, discuss on the talk page whether your citation is appropriate, and defer to the community's opinion.

The concept added has become a standard in network analysis. The sentences added are from the American Sociologial Associate "Outstanding Article 2004" Prize committee.

I would be happy of course for any further editing or suggestions.Douglas R. White 17:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Correct. As long as you're careful and cognizant of the inherent COI, I think you'll be okay. Happy editing! --ElKevbo 17:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
First thought: Where in the article is it used as a reference? It may be more appropriate in a "Further reading" section or something similar if it's not being explicitly used as a reference. If it is being used in a such a manner, please accept my apologies as I have missed it! --ElKevbo 16:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
You're right. I misread the term "References" to mean "Reference material". I'll move it to "Further Reading." Bellagio99 22:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
But then second thought, if it is cited, as Doug White suggests, then it does belong in References. I'll check. Bellagio99 22:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, if it's actually used as a reference then that's where it belongs. If not, it sounds like it belongs in a "Further reading" section. It sounds like y'all are on top of this and I'm sure you'll do the right thing! Please let me know if there is anything I can do to help! --ElKevbo 22:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Been there; done that. I inserted the citation at the end of Structural Cohesion. It would be great if the rest of life (even Wikilife) would be so easy, ElKevbo. 10-4 (which is an age test;))Bellagio99 23:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

You're smart and reasonable...

... so how would you answer this point from User:BigDT:

The rationale for using a Microsoft or Virginia Tech logo in their respective articles is obvious and anything you would want to say about them could be stuck on a template. There is nothing whatsoever that you can say about the Virginia Tech logo that you couldn't also say about the logo for Michigan State University or Notre Dame. When you want to repeat text, you put it on a template, so there's no reason that any rationale we would want for a logo couldn't be put on a template and shared for all of them.

Curiously... Jenolen speak it! 06:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I may be smart and reasonable but I'm not a lawyer. Us lay people can continue to discuss these issues until the cows come home but we need firm legal guidance from one or more experts in copyright law. We can't arrive at a legally sound answer through debate and consensus but only through sound legal advice. --ElKevbo 13:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
That's not really an answer to what is purely a Wikipedia policy question. We've all known, for some time, than Wikipedia "fair use" is way, way more strict than what the law requires. I'm asking you - from a Wikipedia policy standpoint only - what's the difference in WIKIPEDIA "rationale" for the Michigan State University logo on the Michigan State page, and the Notre Dame logo on the Notre Dame page? Jenolen speak it! 17:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
I completely disagree that this is "purely a Wikipedia policy question." It's being driven by legal concerns and thus should be decided or guided by legal experts. Most of us don't try to dictate to the devs how to write their code - we just tell them what is needed and we let them figure out how best to accomplish that. This is similar. In fact, I think it's extremely foolish and dangerous that the Foundation has allowed us to continue this conversation without stepping in to (a) put a stop to it and (b) in consultation with legal counsel, tell us the best way to accomplish our goals. --ElKevbo 17:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, I get it, now. Having been through this ringer several times, I'm quite convinced that this has NOTHING to do with actual law; there are plenty of places where you can read the opinions of actual lawyer/Wikipedians who agree that when it comes to fair use of copyrighted material, Wikipedia is on safe ground. The phantom "threat" of lawsuits is just that - a threat, designed to remove fairly used copyrighted material, to further a different part of Wikipedia's mission - the "free" content part. The writings of User:Wikidemo at this link are especially compelling - There are a wide variety of contexts, such as reproducing a corporate logo when discussing the corporation, or reproducing an album cover when discussing the album, that are so widely accepted as free use that there is nothing more to say about the matter.
As for "legal advice," the only thing Brad Patrick would ever say is "Make the law unnecessary." I.E. - create free content, so you don't have to rely on a fair use claim. Which, of course, was completely unhelpful when it came to content that isn't free, and will never be free, but is encyclopedia-worthy.
And the number of times Wikipedia, in its high-profile history, has been found to be infringing on copyright? Zero. The number of times Wikipedia has been asked to defend its fair use of copyrighted material? Again, zero. I'm not sure why people are so afraid that these numbers are suddenly going to skyrocket... It is, one supposes, like worrying about a killer asteroid, or massive solar flare. Sure, it could happen, and wipe out Earth, but if it does, you're going to have much bigger problems, so why worry about it? Jenolen speak it! 18:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't really care about the opinions of supposed-lawyer Wikipedians with unverified credentials and a probably lack of expertise in copyright. As Beebe has recently demonstrated, fair use is misunderstood even by many lawyers. If we think we can be accurately guided by "Wikipedia lawyers" or even general practitioners hired by the Foundation then we're sadly mistaken (as your quote from Patrick demonstrates).
As a Free encyclopedia, we have an ethical and a legal obligation to not only minimize the amount of non-Free content but also ensure that any non-Free content we are using is used properly. --ElKevbo 15:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
As a Free encyclopedia, we have an ethical and a legal obligation to not only minimize the amount of non-Free content but also ensure that any non-Free content we are using is used properly. -- But you see what the problem with that is? Wikipedia has decided, as a community, that its encyclopedia wants to cover things that never will be free content. It wants to write articles about Harry Potter and Star Wars and Pokemon... So the question isn't really one of "minimizing" non-free content -- in a bizarre way, Wikipedia EMBRACES non-free content! Wikipedia FEEDS off non-free content, and the enthusiastic contributions of editors who want to share their love of non-free content. (Hence, the thousands of articles about films, TV shows, books, comics, etc.) And, as of now, there has never, never, never been a legal problem when it comes to fair use. Can we both agree that the current Non-free content policy is much stricter than what the law requires? If you're worried about a copyright holder suing Wikipedia into oblivion, that's simply not a rational fear. Questionable copyrighted content is removed immediately, per policy. The majority of fairly used content is now being junked. It's just tough to see the site abdicate its legal rights under the banner of "mission purity." Jenolen speak it! 16:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Those not interested in making a Free encyclopedia are welcome to contribute elsewhere. --ElKevbo 16:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
And perhaps they should be more interested in other Wikia projects. But your version of "they should go away" is, of course, is a simple recitation of a catch phrase which indicates no understanding of the argument presented. Wikipedia covers a ton of content that is non-free, and never will be free. And as long as it wants to do that, it'll continue to have these kinds problems. Jenolen speak it! 16:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I understand the issue and I'll thank you to not assume that I don't. We have divergent viewpoints and we're not making any progress. This discussion is going nowhere and I'm done with it. Happy editing. --ElKevbo 16:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Fenwick

<sigh>
—  Jim Dunning  talk  :  04:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I think I see what you're going to do by naming that "reference". It might be easier to just research each and using the repetitions as markers.
—  Jim Dunning  talk  :  15:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't quite follow you but I think I'm done with that article for now; feel free to make any further adjustments, edits, etc. The bibliographic details on the newly added references are woefully inadequate but at this point the article is actually in better shape than most. It could be better but it could also be (and I thought it was going to end up) much, much worse. --ElKevbo 15:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for all your efforts. I had some dark times there, too, but I think it came out okay. I'll keep on working on the sources.
—  Jim Dunning  talk  :  15:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

=Spam clarification

I'd like to ask a clarification point. You apparently are accusing me of vandalism, but I know not what I vandalized--care to clarify? Thanks. 70.161.70.124 20:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Someone editing from your IP address (it might not be you) did indeed vandalize a few articles. If it wasn't you, don't worry about it. That's a downside with editing without logging in: you may receive messages intended for others editing from the same IP address. --ElKevbo 20:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Facebook

You're out of the loop. --Ahmed 18:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Facebook is now publicly owned and traded? When was the IPO? --ElKevbo 18:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


Humbleness

As long as we can admit mistakes... — BQZip01 — talk 21:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Bah. I've got no time for that. It would take me way too long! :) --ElKevbo 21:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Nicholas Saunders (vice-chancellor)

We need your opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicholas Saunders (Vice-Chancellor).Castlemate 21:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm back

Well, I've gone and done it and the Aggie Band article is up for Featured Article status. Any feedback (especially support) would be greatly appreciated. — BQZip01 — talk 08:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

ANI

Why was that attack page made about me? I gues the logo should be changed to "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit unless i disagree with what your doing" I did not think that thoes people were notable they were unsoucred. Why am i geeting picked on for trying to help.ExtraDry 09:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

External Links To Blogs

Referring to Wikipedia's guidelines for external links - "such pages could contain further research that is accurate and on-topic; information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as... amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks)".

LinkedIn may not be appreciated by everyone, but it is useful to many. 65% of business people use it, the average Harvard grad has 48-connections, 11-million users in. The Wikipedia entry for LinkedIn is limited and should be expanded to contain further research made available by serious bloggers. --I3142p168 22:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Make your case on the article's Talk page, please. --ElKevbo 22:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


Re: No citations?

What citation? Do you mean the link above because that doesn't mention the book, or do you mean the book itself? In that case: sorry. Jeffrey.Kleykamp 14:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I meant the book itself. I agree that it wasn't cited well or in line with how we would like editors to cite sources but the necessary bibliographic information was there to locate the source. It's no big deal. As stated earlier, I think your other reasons for removing the information were sound. --ElKevbo 15:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Cases For These Specific Blogs

These four blogs are selected specifically because each describes the ways that LinkedIn actually works, what it is and is not, with news, facts and statistics on user participation and system efficacy. All of these seem to be credible, authoritative and of interest to researchers, news publications, and authors, which would seem to make these additions to the Wikipedia article practical.

--I3142p168 13:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Incident report I filed on User:FatherTree

Yes, it is similiar to DPeterson's because I copied a lot of it from DPeterson's filing. I did a new filing because the person Canvased is now a staunch advocate for the group that recruited him. RalphLendertalk 20:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I find it difficult to believe you given your edit history and its similarities to others' but I don't have a dog in this fight nor the time to pursue this right now. Happy editing! --ElKevbo 20:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

An/I I refiled

I reentered this AN/I because the first one was no longer on this list and no action had yet occurred, although administrator YechielMan had discussed taking administrative action. DPetersontalk 02:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay. --ElKevbo 02:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
YechieMan is not an admin. Fainites 22:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

My edits

Is there a reason why you consider those edits unconstructive?(Drew1830 04:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC))

Just the first one (you made two at the same time). A post that asserts that one institution "owns" another (because of USN&WR rankings, nonetheless) is not at all helpful or collegial. --ElKevbo 04:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

You're fast

We e.c.'ed on this. Same level warning and everything. I took the message off User:BigDT's page and left him a note as to where it had gone and why. --Dynaflow babble 04:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Stop following me! :) --ElKevbo 04:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning

I would certainly elaborate on my closure of this article's AfD. The discussion seemed to me to indicate an agreement that the article was a useful resource, and it can certainly be encyclopedic, as the stated purpose of an encyclopedia is to contain a a comprehensive resource of information. This list (we must remember this is a list, not a true article) contains information that while not conventionally obtained, still has its value. We do have articles on many of these institutions, and as a central source to find them all, this list is useful. I believe that if Category:Unaccredited institutions of higher learning were to be expanded to contain all the relevant pages, consensus could be formed to delete this list, but as is, the discussion indicates a want for this resource. While this was a borderline decision between "no consensus" and "keep", the end result of either choice would be the article being kept. Let me know if you have any further questions, Prodego talk 22:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Obviously I disagree with you but I appreciate you taking the time to explain your reasoning. Happy editing! --ElKevbo 02:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


XBox operating system

The XBox article states that the XBox uses a stripped down version of Windows 2000. However, according to this blog article by XBox Team, this is a myth. Could you correct the XBox article please ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.145.254.239 (talk • contribs) 15:17, July 5, 2007

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome.
Sorry, I am in the middle of a move and have very limited Internet access and time to edit articles. --ElKevbo 18:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Scrolling references template

Hmmmm, my apologies. I had no idea. I will revert my changes and delete the template myself. Thank you for letting me know.↔NMajdan•talk 22:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I didn't recall seeing you active in those discussions so I figured that you simply weren't aware of them. This is a pretty big place so that happens to all of us a *lot*. :) --ElKevbo 01:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Just wishingJoie de Vivre good luck!

I can understand where you were coming from. Just bidding one of my "favorite" users goodbye. Thanks for your concern. -- VegitaU 01:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

He or she has already removed your "goodbye" once. Please don't readd it again. Happy editing! --ElKevbo 01:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


Aaliyah

That wasn't my personal view or any VANDELISM as you and those other wiki people see it. I got this data from Aaliyah's official website and YOU keep taking it off. Krystal is her biggest fan and she is trying to keep her legacy alive. I don't see a problem in posting THE FACTS. I don't think you all have the slightest clue of what VANDELISM is. If I were to write bad and horrible things on her page bashing her or whatever, then It would be vandelism. You people have some nerve to think that you should take down what I added. I added the SIMPLE TRUTH and you snobs took it down. Krystal is dedicated to keep Aaliyah memory alive and that should be noted in her article. You should really rethink your words before you come out and say what I did vandelism because that is totally false and very disrepectful. What I added to the article was very constructive and truthful with NO FALSE INFORMATION, VANDELISM OR ANY OTHER GARBAGE THAT YOU AND THE OTHERS HAVE CITED ME WITH. HOW ABOUT I GO AND DELETE SOME OF YOUR POSTS. Would that be considered vandelism? If so, you have committed vandelism also.

Have a nice day!!! (Aaliyahsnumber1fan 14:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC))


WP:PS again

Please check out this MFD. Your opinion is welcome and requested since you particiated in the original MFD. /Blaxthos 22:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Vick home

I have reverted your reversion of my edit to Vick article. Please use article's Talk Page to discuss your concerns. I will abide by consensus. Vaoverland 22:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

BRD, my friend. --ElKevbo 22:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

THIS MESSAGE IS FROM EXTRADRY

THIS MESSAGE IS FROM EXTRADRY

User Waterdanks is adding infomation straight from the schools website, another example of the school using sockpuppets to have sourced infomation removed just because they don't like it. The infomation he has added in this dif [1] is taken from [2] Also as you can see DXRAW has left the project [3] so please stop calling me the wrong name. Don't sink to the level of sockpuppets. ExtraDry 13:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

THIS MESSAGE IS FROM EXTRADRY

As I told another editor recently, I don't begrudge you the opportunity to start from a clean slate. I think you've done so rather admirably and avoided many of the problems you previously encountered. But please don't continue your old behavior and then deny that past events ever happened; that is not acceptable. In this particular context, it seems quite hypocritical to berate another editor for continuing unacceptable behavior while doing the same thing yourself.
With respect to the continuing edit war at the Newington College article: I know that the article has attracted several sock puppets in the past and that there is a strong likelihood that the editor with whom we are interacting may be another in that long line of sockpuppets. But edit warring and refusing to compromise are still unacceptable. --ElKevbo 15:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
What do you mean clean slate? I'm a different user. ExtraDry 12:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Then act like a different user instead of continuing your previous behavior. --ElKevbo 14:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I cant continue any previous behavior as i'm a new user. I can see that your not going to see the light so im just going to stop trying and you can continue down the wrong path. ExtraDry 14:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

External links

I removed a few obvious links on Fahrenheit 451#External links, but wasn't sure about some of the others (sparknotes, paperstarter, etc) and couldn't find anything yea or nay on their use...if you have a few spare minutes (ha!), could you take a look? Flowanda | Talk 22:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

As you can see, I was pretty draconian. I usually am in External links sections. Let's see what, if any, kickback we get from others. And feel free to add any if *you* think I went too far! --ElKevbo 23:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
You're my favorite Draco! Flowanda | Talk 16:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward McSweegan

Hi, I left a comment in response to yours at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward McSweegan. Bearian 23:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I saw it. I don't have any reply that is relevant to that AfD. :) --ElKevbo 23:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I've requested that every version prior to today be oversighted ... that seems to be what has Dr. McSweegan so upset, that the previous version (in my opinion, the definition of an attack page) is still visible in the article's revision history. Blueboy96 01:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Done ... hopefully the problem's been solved. Blueboy96 01:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Good call and thanks for taking the initiative to get this done! --ElKevbo 02:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Grr, wasn't thinking clearly ... in the midst of chatting with my admin coach, I was writing a summary of what happened and was trying to go back and forth too much. Blueboy96 04:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
No problem. I really just don't want us to accidentally inflame or worsen the situation by confusing our frustrated and very-new-to-Wikipedia friend. Happy editing! --ElKevbo 04:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Newington College

Are you going to remove the History section on Newington? Do you have an opinion on the Academic section? How is it possible to control ExtraDry/DXRAW so that the whole article can be improved? How can a suitable short para on the 2006 industrial dispute be written so it doesn't overshadow the whole page?Archifile 04:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick thanks

For reverting the vandalism on my user page. :) --Dreaded Walrus t c 20:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Questions

Hi,

I am an Assistant Professor of Information Systems at Boston College, and I am researching the development of the Wikipedia article on the Virginia Tech Massacre. You were among the top 2% of editors for that article, and I was wondering if you’d be willing to answer a few questions by email. Please also indicate at the bottom if you’d be willing to participate in a short follow-up phone/Skype interview as well.

All of your responses and your participation will be confidential. Please cut and paste the below questions and respond by email to gerald.kane@bc.edu to ensure confidentiality.

I appreciate your help on this project, and please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. Please also let me know if you are interested in receiving a copy of the paper when it is finished.

Thank You, Gerald C (Jerry) Kane, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Information Systems Carroll School of Management Boston College 140 Commonwealth Ave 326 Fulton Hall Chestnut Hill, MA 02478


Questions: 1) On average, how many hours per week do you spend editing articles on Wikipedia? 2) Why do you contribute your time and energy to developing Wikipedia articles? 3) What types of articles to which do you typically contribute? 4) Why did you choose to become involved in the Wikipedia article on the Virginia Tech Massacre? 5) What was your primary role in the process of creating the article on the Virginia Tech Massacre (e.g. copy editing, fighting vandalism, contributing news, managing a particular section, etc?) 6) How was your experience with this article similar to or different than other Wikipedia articles to which you have contributed? 7) What were some of the most challenging issues facing the successful development of this particular article on the Virginia Tech Massacre? 8) What do you think were some of the primary reasons that this article was successful (i.e. cited in the press, nominated as a “featured article.”) 9) Is there anything else I should know about the Wikipedia article on the VT massacre? 10) Would you be willing to participate in a short phone/Skype interview to talk more about your experience with the article (if yes, I will follow up later by email to arrange it).

Pownce

Hi. In what way is this a plus-point mention for Pownce? Read the tone of the review. I'm surprised: a) that they actually included such a downbeat opinion of the venture as a reference; b) that we are now actively welcoming Beta websites with open arms; and c) that you yourself have fallen for the hype. Far be it for me to 3RR or editwar, so have it included as you wish. They don't pull the wool over my eyes though. Notability for Digg doesn't automatically pass to any other venture they deem to set up. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 21:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey, *I* don't decide what everyone else thinks is worth covering in the media or is otherwise notable. If I did then most of that list would not exist. :) But it's clearly gotten a lot of attention, even if it's in beta. In fact, the article doesn't even cite many of the references it could (should?). Yes, it's quite silly. But we need to be consistent in our definition of notable. --ElKevbo 21:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
And the attention is certainly stoked up within Wikipedia, it seems, as I have just been reading the Deletion Review. I'll never make an admin, because I'm blowed if I understood the rationale at the outset. The DRV went careering from absolute stay deleted at the beginning, to relist at the end, without a salient point being made.
I cannot accept that the notability of one person in this field encompasses every project he starts (and it has only just started, after all). Notability of Digg is proven; same for TechTV; and therefore for Kevin Rose. Kevin Rose made Digg. But where notability is concerned, Digg made Kevin Rose. Which one is the primary notable?
With every other website on the list, and regardless of "mentions" in various publications, we tend to expect our sites to be established, and certainly not beta testers. Or at least we tended to in the past.
I think it's time I took a break from watching the List, as I am disagreeing more and more with some of the flotsam currently washing up on it, and the ability of contributors to remain completely objective. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 22:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I think we're on the same page. Honestly, I don't watch this list very closely at all. If it has an article then it passes my very, very low bar. It's not much but it's something. :(
And I haven't followed the pownce article at all. I've just seen a lot of hype in other venues and media. It's all hype but there's a lot of it.
It's the dot com bubble all over again, my friend... and this time we don't even get the cool chairs. --ElKevbo 22:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Einstein

Sorry about that, my friend asked to use my account and without my permission started vandalising other things. Please watch him, he is currently Boomboom75 under someone else's account. I will not let him again.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ElKevbo/Archive_5&oldid=1146797261"