User talk:ElKevbo/Archive 20

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.

No

You began an edit war-Cartamandua (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Joe Paterno page corrections

Hello,

In order to introduce myself to you, I am a 1982 graduate of the University of Illinois with a BA in Economics, Spanish minor, and a 1985 graduate of the University of Texas with a Master's in International Business. On top of that, I am a mother whose child was abused at a local middle school in the locker room.

Accurate and highly appropriate citations were given to the edits I made to this page this morning. I'm not sure to whom you are referring to as having discussed this page extensively in the past, but you will likely not find an expert on the entire Jerry Sandusky/Second Mile situation who is as unrelated to Penn State University as I.

My main focus is in disseminating properly researched information on the topic of child offenders, which arose when I found out that the Second Mile was trying to quickly "skedaddle" out of PA under the umbrella of a children's charity based in my state called Arrow Ministries. The case was being conducted in the Orphan's Court in PA, but no one in the child advocacy area in the State of Texas had been apprised, which I promptly did. They were not allowed to move any of their operations to this state or the other states they operate in (CA and MD to be specific), and are finally being phased out in PA.

I have read and studied every line of every one of all of the 13 or so related cases in Pennsylvania, the various reports that have been issued, as well as reading, digesting and analyzing PA law as it pertains to these cases. I also keep in mind that most of the articles written at the time are well out of date and inexplicably center on "football", and have been shown to contain factual innaccuracies due to the convenient media practice of "aggregating" what is written by others and not doing their own researach. I know which writers are reliably accurate and which are not, because I correspond with some of them on a regular basis.

It appeared to me this morning as I perused this page as if other contributors at Wiki had not been properly fact-checking, as well as keeping up with all of the various lawsuits resulting from this sad child abuse situation that was solely attributable to the founder of the Second Mile. The only references on this page are to certain "media articles" and not the actual court proceedings themselves.

I have also watched every single Penn State Trustees Board meeting since November of 2011, and followed their elections, appointments, and particularly who* has exited the Board since 2011. *That would be every Trustee who was involved in the SITF. If you don't know what the SITF was or who was on it, in my humble opinion you are not an expert on this topic.

I am fairly sure no one in your discussion group has done all of this work that I have, including receiving the proper training on pillar of the community offenders and helping facilitate the training of others in my local community. If they have, then I respectfully challenge them to prove my facts wrong.

Therefore I request that at the very least, my properly cited and highly accurate edits to paragraph 3 concerning the NCAA lawsuit against Pennsylvania Officials Tom Corbett, Rob McCord, and Audit DePasquale and the ensuing countersuit by Senator Corman, now Majority Leader, and treasurer Rob McCord of the NCAA be reinstated. Nellykire (talk) 13:24, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, Nellykire! It might be best if you could propose your specific edits on the article's Talk page so other editors who are interested in the topic can read and respond. My primary objections to your edits were changing the "Penn State sexual assault scandal" to something else because that has been extensively discussed many times. So if your edits are focused primarily on bringing some of the content up-to-date then they make be uncontroversial and welcomed by everyone.

I caution you, however, against inserting your own point of view into the article. There is widespread consensus that these tragedies significantly included the university (and it's undeniable that the resulting fallout altered the course of the university in many significant ways) so using your personal opinion to alter the articles away from that consensus would be unwise. ElKevbo (talk) 15:59, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:UAA

I think that bot, that's supposed to clean up after us, is broken too. I swung through and handed out a few blocks--I hope my fellow admins pick up the slack too. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:43, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! ElKevbo (talk) 19:08, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Harrisburg University

Why did you delete the information listing the majors? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cityboy911 (talk • contribs) 20:51, January 31, 2016‎

Because it is an encyclopedia article and not an admissions brochure. More specifically, it's a bad idea to have detailed listings of information in articles when those details frequently change or simply don't provide information that's critical. There is also existing consensus to omit that kind of detailed information in college and university articles.

If there are specific degree programs at the university that are of particular interest or especially helpful in telling readers about the university then feel free to add them - with reliable sources, of course. ElKevbo (talk) 02:56, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for responding. How do you add photos off the internet to a Wikipedia page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cityboy911 (talk • contribs) 22:09, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

You can upload images that you've downloaded using the File Upload Wizard. But please only upload images that are in the public domain, use a suitable license that permits reuse here, or that you already own! ElKevbo (talk) 22:26, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Middlebury College

Sorry about my revert of your edit at Middlebury College - I misread the text in the note. Once I realized my mistake, I self-reverted to restore your revised text of the note. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:13, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

No problem! Thanks for the note. ElKevbo (talk) 19:46, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry again ... I was correct the first time (was working from my phone, back to a laptop now). But, I think the best place to discuss further is at Talk:Middlebury College#Inclusion criteria in Alumni list. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:22, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Your help is appreciated.

ElKevbo,

Thank you for pointing out that there may be COI issues with my edits. As a Wikipedia monitor and helper, can you suggest the best way for me, a paid employee of UNE, to have this article updated with more accurate and organized information - yes, from the point of view of the college administration? I don't suspect there is any specific problem with the content itself. Just with the fact that I'm the one making the changes.

I read all the guidelines you suggested, and I am sincerely asking for your help and interest beyond just flagging COI and going away.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Une1831 (talk • contribs) 23:42, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

@Une1831:, I recommend that you first suggest your proposed edits on the article's Talk page where other editors can discuss them and either suggest modifications or perhaps let you know that they're uncontroversial and you can make them yourself. This is a good place to go if you don't get a timely response on the article's Talk page.

And so we're clear, I had significant problems with the edits that you made! I recommend taking a look at the college and university articles that are classified as "Featured articles;" they're generally the best articles of their type. Note that the articles are generally neutral in tone and they don't use external links except in references and one or two specific sections (e.g., "External links"). ElKevbo (talk) 03:55, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

ElKevbo, thank you for your guidance. Would you please review my disclosure and request for edit? It's the first one I've ever made and would appreciate very much your input as far as whether I've gone about it correctly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:University_of_New_England_(United_States)#New_section

Thank you. Evergreen678 (talk) 22:58, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Please...

...do not post on my talk page again, unless you are required to do so by Wikipedia policy. ANy future posts on my talk page will be deleted without being read, And please also stop attempting to create the illusion of a consensus by editing while logged oy, a violation of WP:SOCK. Thanks. BMK (talk) 00:34, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

File an SPI or shut up. ElKevbo (talk) 00:47, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for that, ElKevbo. I badly worded my comments, not considering all the consequences to other users. So, I offer my apologies; it is an unfortunate truth that BMK's believed ownership irks me among others. 82.49.64.106 (talk) 01:09, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

No problem. My interactions with Beyond My Ken have been very unpleasant and the fault is entirely his or hers and not yours! ElKevbo (talk) 00:08, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Most users interacting with him, experienced the same. (Due to a power outage, the IP changed during the night.) 79.53.122.120 (talk) 07:00, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

San Diego State University College of Business Administration

Hi Kevin, would you mind keeping your eye on San Diego State University College of Business Administration? An employee of the university is making a lot of changes there and has not been willing to discuss edits (except to tell me on my talk page to apologize.) You do excellent work on university articles, so any help you can provide would be appreciated. Best, Bahooka (talk) 04:45, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I've cleaned it up a bit. 🇺🇸 Corkythehornetfan 🇺🇸 05:10, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Edits to Applicant tracking system page

This Jacob Gordon, Media and Communications Officer at JobDiva, an Applicant Tracking System. I’ve been attempting make some edits to the Applicant tracking system Wikipedia page. I’d like to more fully explain the nature of the edits I’ve been trying to make.

As I’ve pointed out, JobDiva is the only ATS on the market that filters candidates by years of experience based on the resume. Therefore, the following statement in the Wikipedia page -- “In many cases they filter applications automatically based on given criteria such as keywords, skills, former employers, years of experience and schools attended.[2] This has caused many to adapt resume optimization techniques similar to those used in search engine optimization when creating and formatting their résumé – is potentially misleading. The proximity of the terms “in many cases,” “years of experience,” “skills,” and “resumes” could easily lead the reader to the false conclusion that this filtering ability is shared by many ATSs.

In my attempted edits thus far, I’ve backed up JobDiva’s claim to be the only ATS to filter candidates in this manner with references to JobDiva patents as they are listed on the US Patent Office website . Your response suggested that I would have to find a reliable source other than the patent office in order to bolster these claims. If I interpret your response correctly, you are suggesting that other organizations may be using this filtering ability even though we hold patents on it – that is, they are engaging in patent infringement. We’ve gone to court to protect our patents in the past, and I can assure you that if anyone were infringing on our patents, we would be suing them as we speak. We are not aware of any infringement currently taking place. If you are aware of any such infringement, please bring it to our attention – you are a witness to a violation of the law.

Finally, I am puzzled by your rejection of the Patent Office references when some of the references currently on the page seem dubious. The page’s first reference, for example, is a link to SmartRecruiters’ home page; it is used to back up the article’s claim that “an ATS is very similar to customer relationship management systems.” Yet the SmartRecruiters home page says nothing about the similarities between ATSs and CRMs. Similarly, the fifth reference bolsters the claim that “the majority of job and resume boards have partnerships with ATS software providers to provide parsing support and ease of data migration from one system to another.” Yet the reference is simply a link to Monster.com’s About page, which says nothing at all about ATSs. It seems to me that our proposed Patent Office references are more solid and reliable than some of the references currently on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacobg898 (talk • contribs) 21:18, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

@Jacobg898:, thanks for the message! I hope that you saw my reply at the article's Talk page. ElKevbo (talk) 17:31, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

CSULA Wikipedia article edit undone

The CSULA wikipidia article may not be a news article but any event dosent have to warrant one or two sentences if it becomes larger than just one isolated incident. It could just be one isolated incident for inclusion2602:306:CC1F:8430:113F:202:AD82:46F2 (talk) 23:59, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

But your summary of the event does have to be balanced, and yours clearly represents on side of the issue. It also has to be reliably sourced. --Drmargi (talk) 00:11, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) See also WP:RECENT, WP:NOTNEWS. clpo13_(talk) 00:12, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Peyton Manning

The banner says exactly "Information regarding the retirement may be based on anonymous sources and/or awaiting an official announcement. Initial news reports may be unreliable." And the reports about his retirement say "According to Denver Post columnist Woody Paige, Manning "will acknowledge his decision" to retire by the end of next week. NFL Media Insider Ian Rapoport reported Feb. 1 that Manning told close friends that he expected to retire during the offseason. In addition, Manning has not told anyone in the Broncos' organization about whether or not he plans to retire, team and league sources told Rapoport on Saturday." Hmmm, kinda sounds like this banner was designed for exactly this situation.--Rockchalk717 16:37, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

This same banner was used for Calvin Johnson when rumors starting coming about him wanting to retire, but no official was made at the time either. And the edits haven't been put in either a, because of that banner being there, or b, because expierenced editors know it doesn't belong in there yet anyway since it basically boils down to a rumor. To put it simple, leave it there. It will prevent premature edits.--Rockchalk717 16:43, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not going to edit war or even continue discussion beyond this one comment but it seems silly and unnecessary to place a banner on an article that merely repeats core policies, specific policies relevant to that article, and common practices for all articles especially when no one has even attempted to make the edits that the banner is discouraging. One could even go so far as to assert that the banner itself is a not-so-clever way to insert the information that you claim shouldn't be inserted. ElKevbo (talk) 17:18, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

One of my personal goals on here is prevention of premature edits for sports news. When reports are using words like "considering" "reports say" "sources say" etc. I have gotten frustrated with IP addresses prematurely adding this types of reports in prior to any official announcement. When Peyton Manning's release from the Colts was announced, there was a hell of a battle with people trying to call him a free agent before he was actually released. There is nothing wrong with prevention of these types of edits. And the reason to include it is because not every editor on here or everybody reading this are familiar with policies that experienced editors like you or myself are quite familiar with. This is not the first time I have placed something in an article to prevent premature edits of reports and you are the first and only editor that has had an issue with it.--Rockchalk717 14:34, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Willamette Week on Art+Feminism

Would you mind weighing in on an editorial matter? An editor has created the above-named section for the Talk page of various articles and added http://www.wweek.com/2016/03/02/ladypedia/ as content. It looked like spam to me, so I reverted with the explanation WP:SPAM. When the other editor undid my reverts, I began a discussion on his Talk page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Another_Believer). His response sounds plausible, but I'm not experienced enough as a Wikipedia contributor to determine if in fact his reasons are valid. What do you think? Thanks.Contributor321 (talk) 19:37, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't know if it's spam but it certainly doesn't appear to be helpful to anyone for an editor to just paste a URL into a Talk page without any explanation or context. ElKevbo (talk) 22:43, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

OK, thanks for your input. Contributor321 (talk) 22:47, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Little Ivies

Hi, ElKevbo I hope posting this does not bother you. If so, I apologize. I am reaching out to you in regards to your posts on the Little Ivy page. I believe that the future state of this article is far worse than either of us may have feared. After looking at the edit history of the other three recent editors to this article it appears that one was recently created to manipulate this article and all three have numerous recent edits on Bates, Colby and Bowdoin pages. The recently posited list inexplicably includes Bates and Colby while excluding clear favorites like Haverford and Hamilton. As such, I believe that they "have a horse in this race" that is affecting their proposed content of this article. In effect, I believe that we have a team of editors who have a personal agenda to champion their own alma mater CBB schools. I am very concerned that a purposeful manipulation is occurring to promote boostership of specific schools. I would also take a long look at the evolution of the NESCAC article in relation to the Little Ivy topic.

The best thing to do may be to completely delete this article. As I have spent a considerable amount of time of this article, I do not come to this decision lightly. However, I believe this article will be the perpetual victim of self-promotion and increasingly vitriolic rhetoric. Prior editors that I collaborated with were courteous in their discussion of the academic evaluation of other schools. However arbitrary as we may have been, we always worked towards an atmosphere of extensive discussion and inclusion. The recent group has been capricious, dismissive and insulting of the academics of schools that they do not deem worthy of inclusion based on pure opinion. I have tried to champion a level of inclusion and reasonable reliance upon valid metrics rather than resort to edit wars. However, I fear that the amorphous nature of the criteria for inclusion in this article may leave it the victim of endless edit wars and circular arguments. What are your thoughts? Should we just delete this whole article?74.70.116.187 (talk) 04:46, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Matthew Barzun External Link Deletion

Hello, ElKevbo Thank you for your message. Concerning the link you removed because it seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. I think you have made a mistake. The link I added to the external link is the original video uploaded by The World Leaders Forum at Comumbia University, and the notes taken from the Mr Barzun's talk are objectively written, organized, and credible; as equally as credible as the link you have chosen not to delete from the External link section. Can you please explain how they seem inappropriate? Thank you Mjoshuasmith —Preceding undated comment added 21:42, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

@Mjoshuasmith: your only edits have been to add links to that website so I have to wonder if you're here exclusively to promote or have some other relationship with it. ElKevbo (talk) 21:45, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

ElKevbo, My edit was to contribute to the page. That is my relationship to it. I have not made material edits to the main content itself because I am not yet knowledgeable in Wiki's language to make edits. Concerning the external link, the analysis of that 1 hour and 2 minute video took me roughly 1 hour and 45 minutes to watch, note, fact check, and add relevant information to. Were my intentions to simply spam a wikipedia page, I could probably think of much quicker ways of doing so. Is this the only reason why my external link seems inappropriate? Thank you Mjoshuasmith —Preceding undated comment added 21:51, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

It's my primary concern as that behavior - only adding links to one particular website to multiple articles - is one that is common to people who are interested only in promoting something (their employer, themselves, etc.). However, I'll assume good faith and believe that you're here to contribute to the encyclopedia. In that case, I still object to the insertion of your links into the "External links" section because they don't seem like the kind of comprehensive materials that we usually look for in external links. However, there may be things in the videos that you can add to the articles using the videos or transcripts as sources! ElKevbo (talk) 22:00, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I understand and appreciate your position, and shall implement your ideas. I still, however, disagree with the external link I added being removed, and feel that assuming good faith and based on my own experience using Wikipeda that the article you chose to remove is comprehensive enough to be considered for inclusion to the encyclopedia, and that it should be put back in. Mjoshuasmith —Preceding undated comment added 22:17, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I recommend opening a discussion on the article's Talk page so you can better gauge others' understanding of this policy and opinion on this specific link. ElKevbo (talk) 23:04, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Question

Is this move correct? I've never seen it this was and have always thought that there should be no space between the dash... I don't of a guideline [if there is one], so I thought I'd ask the expert! ☔️ Corkythehornetfan ☔️ 19:36, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Good question! It appears to be consistent with how the subject is presented on its official website so it at least passes the sniff test. We have articles with unorthodox titles like danah boyd and Yahoo! so I imagine that this is fine but I'd ask the folks who hang around the Talk page of the MOS as they may know if we typically enforce this lexical convention in titles or if we accept the subject's preference. ElKevbo (talk) 20:38, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I thought it was! lol. Thanks for the advice, I'll decide if I want to argue with the page mover or not. I've not agreed with them in the past! ☔️ Corkythehornetfan ☔️ 02:03, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it's worth your time to pursue. Even if it were an MOS issue it seems like such a minor one that your time (and mine) is better spent on more substantive issues. If it's a significant MOS issue then someone else who really cares about it will come along and fix it at some point so let it be their (potential) battle. ElKevbo (talk) 15:06, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Eric Barron/Penn State Sexual Abuse Controversy

I am at a loss to understand how this is not of biographical relevance. In the past six hours, more than a hundred newspapers, in the U.S. and overseas, have covered the contents of President Barron's open letter. Already it has earned him more column inches than any other single episode in his professional career, other than his appointments as President of Florida State and Penn State respectively. Certainly no act of his during his two-year tenure thus far has gained remotely as much public attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.15.18.142 (talk) 23:28, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) WP:NOTNEWS may be a good start for an explanation. clpo13_(talk) 23:32, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Paine College

Uncertain why the additional information regarding the history, campus, and current events of Paine College have been completely removed. The information regarding accreditation wasn't removed, just placed in the current events section, that I added, with more detail regarding the accreditation status39aka94 (talk) 20:37, 16 May 2016 (UTC)39aka94

Please explain the decision to remove the content I added: intro information about the college (a more complete summary) academic information campus- more information regarding buildings on campus current events- includes the information regarding accreditation, along with more recent updates to the situation

39aka94 (talk) 20:57, 16 May 2016 (UTC)39aka94

My apologies! I didn't mean to remove all of that. I think that I restored nearly all of it with the primary exception being that I retained the financial issues and accreditation status in the lead since they seem to be critically important features of the college right now. ElKevbo (talk) 21:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

LU Classification

@ElKevbo: You changed my edit to Liberty University's rankings. I realize why you did it, though I don't quite see what the difference is between a classification (in this particular case, anyway) and a ranking. Regardless, I feel this should be included somewhere. Any suggestions on where to include it? Keep in mind that "Carnegie listings strongly shape how government officials, independent analysts and academic groups perceive more than 4,600 post-secondary institutions in the United States." (~ A Washington Post article) -- Super3588 (talk) 22:11, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

It's fine to include the classification in the lead, even in the very first sentence where the "type" of institution (research university, liberal arts college, etc.) is initially described. But either state it as a plain fact ("__ is a research university") or write it out a bit more descriptively ("__ is classified as a research university") with a citation to the classification webpage for the institution. It shouldn't include any mention of a "ranking" or prestige. ElKevbo (talk) 14:06, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Okay. I would've done that, but I've had edits that I've done that way reverted before because the fact wasn't mentioned in the main article. -- Super3588 (talk) 20:12, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

DePaul University

Hello,

It seems pretty clear to me that user TJD2 has a conflict of interest with DePaul. Seeing that he edited quite a few anti-feminism pages, and Milo is known to be a starch opponent of feminism, It seems that he can't keep the edit objective. What troubles me is his subjective wording regarding the controversy. Also, when he says," DePaul administration ordered security to stand down," he is engaging in speculation. The reference provided is a personal blog, not an objective source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khalidmilan (talk • contribs) 01:34, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Public Ivy

Perhaps a request for semi protection is more in order. Can I impose on you to seek it, if you agree? I'm on the road and iPad editing is laborious and error-fraught! JohnInDC (talk) 21:42, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Someone blocked the editor and semi-protected the article. We'll see how it goes once those have both expired... ElKevbo (talk) 17:32, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks so much. JohnInDC (talk) 19:53, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Rustyjj70

In response to this, given the username and the fact that he's linking to books by a John J. Rust, I'm assuming the two people are the same person. He's been adding links to his books for years now, mostly unnoticed. I've removed the links, but I'm not sure this doesn't deserve further action. Calidum ¤ 17:19, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

My thinking (and actions), too! ElKevbo (talk) 17:32, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I didn't realize you removed the other links before I left this comment. Thanks. I gave him a warning and will watch to see if he repeats his spamming. Calidum ¤ 00:43, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Today I notified[1] an administrator about Rustyjj70. Feel free to chime in. Cheers!...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:18, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the [[2]] regarding violation of consensus. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "[[3]]".The discussion is about the topic [4]. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Cardinalfan24 (talk) 08:14, 17 June 2016 (UTC)