User talk:ElKevbo/Archive 6

Your Harassment of me

Any further comments from you on my talkpage will be removed. I dont like your WP:STALK of me. ExtraDry 02:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

And I don't like your namecalling, hypocrisy, current and past behavior (under this and your previous username), and ownership of the Newington College article. You display a severe misunderstanding of critical Wikipedia policies and community norms. I fully expect that you will manage to earn yourself blocks just as you did with your previous account.

In the meantime, I honestly and sincerely implore you to just step away from the Newington College article. It's not your article and your continued censorship and ownership is bad for the article and this project as a whole. I know that it's being plagued by one or more pro-Newington sockpuppets and you have my word that we won't let them whitewash the article. But you can't own the article and make it "better" by going to the other extreme as you have been doing for many, many months now. It's time to move on and leave the article in others' capable hands. --ElKevbo 02:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Reply to your statement on Talk:Michael Vick

Hello, I hope you are doing well. Just in case you are not watching Talk:Michael Vick, I am copying my reply here:

If you do not believe in contributing to this Free encyclopedia then you can either work to change our fundamental ideals (good luck with that) or contribute elsewhere. --ElKevbo 01:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

If you do not believe in making this encyclopedia the best, most informative encyclopedia it can be - which would include the legal use of fair use content, then YOU can either change our ideals or go elsewhere. The fact is that the majority of Wikipedia contributors and a vast majority of Wikipedia readers would prefer to see more fair use content since it makes for a better encyclopedia. Wikipedia did not start out as a "free content" crusade. It started out as an encyclopedia. Recently, a small handful of people have subverted the project into an open source crusade and have lost focus on making this the best encyclopedia it can be. Johntex\^talk 15:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

In other words, our current policy is a recent phenomenon, and it is not representative of the prevailing views of the community. Hopefully we will be able to turn our focus back into making the world's best encyclopedia. We should be leaving the free content crusade to WikiCommons. By the way, I have nothing at all against free content. I contribute quite a few photos to Commons. Johntex\^talk 15:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, it has always been a Free encyclopedia. The only "recent phenomenon" is a realization that we're moving away from our founding goals and ideals. I'm sorry that many of our contributors have felt free to ignore that ideal but that doesn't change the ideal or the goal. Your definition of "better" is simply not how the ideals and goals of this project define "better." If the mismatch between your own goals and that of this project differ significantly then I renew my offer that you can either work to change our goals or contribute elsewhere. --ElKevbo 15:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Reply

See my reply to your comment on my proposal here. --(Review Me) R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 23:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

US Navy Officers

It's been 30 years since I was in the Navy, but at that time a LCDR was considered a junior officer and addressed as "Mister". Nor did a LCDR have any scrambled eggs on the bill of their cover. Has this changed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulLambert (talk • contribs) 22:20, August 5, 2007

I got out several years ago, too, but I'm pretty sure that in the Navy LCDRs are not junior officers. The first good reference I found seems to support my memory. I don't have any of my references anymore so anything that you can find to support or refute this would be greatly appreciated! I'm having a difficult finding anything else online and I long ago gave away my Bluejacket's Manual and anything else that might be of use. The only reference I still have, my Reef Points, doesn't seem to be of any help. --ElKevbo 02:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The Centers for Disease Control states that O-4s can be addressed as "Mister". But I don't put much stock in what the CDC says on this matter. :)

Anyone got a copy of "Naval Customs and Traditions" or another authoritative guide handy? --ElKevbo 02:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

sorry about your personal page

hit the wrong button didnt know where i was —Preceding unsigned comment added by UkrNole 485 (talk • contribs) 23:22, August 5, 2007

No problem! --ElKevbo 03:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use images of living people

Please see WP:FU and Wikipedia:Deletion of all fair use images of living people. A free use image of Grint is necessary as he still alive and active, and a fair use image that is used to simply show his appearance is not allowed. Gran² 11:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Gotcha. Be careful throwing around Wikipedia:Deletion of all fair use images of living people as that is merely an essay and not policy. You should also definitely change the message you are putting into infoboxes as it is unclear and wrong; not having a fair use image has nothing to do with that infobox and everything to do with the image being replaceable. A link to the policy would also be most helpful for other editors.

Incidentally, what happened to the fair use image that was in that particular article, anyway? I know I've had to revert to it at least once. Was it replaced again? Please check the article's history and revert to the fair use image instead of just removing the image and replacing it with a misleading note. --ElKevbo 11:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

How is the note misleading? No fair use images to show what a person looks like are allowed, and that means in the infobox, which is where they would be put. And the image? Well it was removed, becuase it was fair use, which is not allowed... and it shouldn't be put back. Gran² 11:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Having re-read it, I agree with you, and have changed the note, as it was slightly confusing. Gran² 12:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Awesome. Thanks so much! --ElKevbo 13:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Speaker debate

FYI, Southern Texas has apparently "retired" from Wikipedia. It's too bad, I hoped we could work out a resolution. It appears that it had less to do with this and more to do with an unrelated dispute. Thought I'd let you know. Cheers, JCO312 15:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that, too. We'll see if it's a permanent retirement or a temporary respite. Things can get pretty harsh here, even between well-meaning and good-natured folks. :( --ElKevbo 15:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Calls for deletion

You might like to comment on the calls for deletion of Douglas Trathen, Michael Howe (headmaster and Headmasters' Conference of the Independent Schools of Australia. Tallum 04:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Do not message editors about AfD nominations because they support your view on the topic. This can be seen as votestacking. See Wikipedia:Canvassing for guidelines. ExtraDry 05:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Edward McSweegan

This is getting ugly, I think ... I have a funny feeling we're gonna have to call in an administrator. Blueboy96 20:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Figured I'd better put out the fire and fast--started an ANI thread here. Blueboy96 20:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar

		The Mighty Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to ElKevbo, whose idea to splinter List of YouTube celebrities off from YouTube has made each subject considerably more manageable, and whose continuing vigilance against ill-conceived or self-promotional additions to the list lends integrity to a project that many editors might otherwise dismiss. Thank you for your contributions, and keep up the good work. Ichormosquito 04:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! --ElKevbo 04:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Brandon Flowers

Applause for removing the trivia section form BF - 95% of it was redundant. I swear that article adds trivia to itself.--Esprit15d 16:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not 100% sold on the "All Trivia is EVIL!!!!" stance - but I'm getting closer as I see more of those sections with unreferenced and utterly trivial information that has no place in an encyclopedia. I hope to never be an absolutist but it's an uphill battle. --ElKevbo 16:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Speaker of the House of Representatives

Just thought I'd let you know that I suggested the list be split into its own article and your opinions would help at Talk:Speaker of the United States House of Representatives#Split of section. Thank you.--Southern Texas 17:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Talk:George W. Bush

Look at the user in question's talk page and then look at his edits and then please decide whether or not reverting me was the right thing to do.--Southern Texas 04:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not terribly concerned with his or her history as the question is legitimate. If he or she is disrupting other articles then that needs to be dealt with separately. --ElKevbo 04:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The user is a pov warrior who tries to make claims that Republicans are fascists. How is this at all appropriate for wikipedia and how would these postings help the project?--Southern Texas 04:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

That does not justify the removal of a legitimate question from an article's Talk page. I think that you and I agree that it's a stupid question that makes his or her POV transparent but that still doesn't give us the right to simply remove the question entirely. --ElKevbo 04:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The talk page was just vandalized I say just keep it like that and would probably help the project just as much,:) Its obvious that the said editor is not here to make the article better his claims don't have any factual basis. There is no question its just a rant--Southern Texas 04:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

While were talking could you help me out and look at the Speaker page above and put in your opinion about the split.--Southern Texas 04:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I honestly don't have much of an opinion on that issue. It appears to be in good hands with a good group of active and interested editors so I'm not at all worried about the outcome. --ElKevbo 04:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Derek Smart

Please take a little more care in archiving the page. You also archived the ArbCom decision header, as well as missed that just before your archive, an anon IP restored the legal threats I had just redacted. I hope I got everything that I took out the first time, but I'm not sure. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 23:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

It's your call whether or not to remove both the legal threat and all of the relatively-unrelated-to-the-threat discussion that followed; I don't care to remove materials from Talk pages unless I'm fully prepared to back up my removal.

With respect to the ArbCom header - that's not really much of a "header." If it's meant to be permanent, please either (a) add some text indicating so or (b) make it into a real Talk page header. --ElKevbo 23:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

No worries. I'm prepared to back up the legal threat discussion deletion. As for the arbcom header, I'd prefer to do option B, but embarassingly, I don't know how because I am ridiculously awful with template stuff.⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 02:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit surprised that there is not such a template already in existence. I've posted a query at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration to see if there is a template but we're just both unaware of it. --ElKevbo 02:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I can't imagine that there isn't anything for that. I could swear I've seen something to that effect. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 02:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip

Hey, thanks for the tip about the sandbox. As you suspected I was just playing around and wanted to see what it would look like, I didn't realize it would actually stay that way. I'm new at all this. I'll go check out "Editing Wikipedia" when I get a chance.

Question

Can I ask exactly why me taking you up on things you've said on my user page results in me getting blocked rather than you actually giving any kind of reason for doing so? Atraxus 00:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Peej

No problem. I doubt they'll take the redirect down, but it is in their interest to let visitors see the info they've put up! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Military titles

My reading of WP:MOSCAPS is that the rank would definitely NOT be capitalized; and that "Navy" would only be capitalized if it were a specific navy such as U.S. Navy. Do you have a cite that says otherwise? --Orange Mike 16:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything specifically addressing military ranks in the MOS. Outside of Wikipedia, military ranks are (to the best of my knowledge) always capitalized and never lower case. Even within Wikipedia, that appears to be the common usage in the articles concerned with the military. In this specific instance, the most applicable article is consistent in its capitalization. It would probably be best to look through the Talk pages of the MOS to see if this has been addressed and if it has not then let's address it as it should be addressed.

With respect to "Navy" v. "navy", I would submit that the reference is an implicit reference to the U.S. Navy (made somewhat explicit by the link to the U.S. Navy article). If it's necessary to make the reference more explicit then I'd be okay with that! --ElKevbo 21:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

MOSCAPS#Titles explicitly says that we would write "Louis was a French king" or "Nixon was an American president"; seems inconsistent that we would write, "Fred is an Albanian General"! (And I believe that applies outside Wiki as well; we write, "Admiral Heinlein made sure of that,", but "In this timeline, Heinlein became an admiral.") --Orange Mike 13:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

In my experience, it depends greatly whether or not the position is being used as a title or a common descriptor. In this particular case ("admiral" v. "Admiral"), the lack of capitalization also adds ambiguity. Saying that "So-and-so is an admiral" is different from "So-and-so is an Admiral." "admiral" implies either the generic nautical/naval term or a Flag officer with a rank between O-7 and O-9, inclusive. "Admiral" specifically implies O-9 (i.e. not Rear Admiral (lower half), Rear Admiral (upper half), or Vice Admiral).

I'm not saying that this usage is completely consistent in Wikipedia or that it's consistent with the MOS. That's the usage in many Wikipedia articles and outside of Wikipedia, particularly within and near the military. It would not be the first time that the MOS is out-of-step with other standards nor the first time that I have argued that the MOS is simply wrong or unclear. --ElKevbo 15:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

In the instance that started this discussion, it was a descriptor, not a title. I have no idea what the dude's actual rank is, and I don't know whether the original poster did either; so the ambiguity of lower case is a good thing. --Orange Mike 15:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

As "dude's" article indicates, he is an Admiral, O-9. :) --ElKevbo 15:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for assistance

As someone with whom I have reviewed or worked with on an article or talk page, I humbly request your assistance in reviewing the Aggie Bonfire page for Featured Article status. Any/all constructive input is welcomed and appreciated on the FAC nomination page, but please read the instructions for reviewing before you make a comment. Thanks in advance for your assistance. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Breyers

Thanks for simplifying the ==Recipe changes== situation. I walked into the article last week and saw that section rife with WP:NPOV, WP:SOAP, WP:ATTACK, and other problems. As a relatively new contributor I was hesitant to remove existing content, and made a good-faith effort to rewrite what was there, and then balance it out with additional sources. For my efforts I ended up engaging in several rounds of revert/edit with the individual who originally put all that crap in there.

By following the guidelines even more closely, I think you've improved the article even more. For my part, I'll stay on the lookout for some better sources, and continue defending the article from problem editors.

Chewyrunt 14:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Just noticed that the edit immediately prior to yours was yet another (the seventh) attempt by this user to insert gross WP:NPOV infactions into this section of this article. Because the user's IP address keeps changing (but always mapping to hsd1.pa.comcast.net), I'm going to submit this to WP:AIV. Chewyrunt 14:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

President of the United States

Hi. You just reverted some vandalism, but you also reverted my revision of other vandalism, thereby putting the earlier vandalism back in the article. My revert was about 45 minutes before yours, so it was clearly there before you reverted. I've taken care of it; I just wanted to point it out for you to be more careful next time. Info999 16:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Oops. I reverted to the wrong revision. Slip of the mouse!

By the way, if the rate of vandalism to that article continues at this pace it will be a perfect candidate for semi-protection. I guess this is what happens when students get back in school? :( --ElKevbo 16:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

'vandalism'

Atraxus is a personal friend in r/l, and the edit to his page is an ongoing in-joke between us. As a user page, and therefore not a 'public part' of the wikipedia, for want of a better term, I hardly think this is vandalism. If you peruse my edit history you'll see I am in fact a staunch battler against vandalism. Grunners 20:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

comment request

Hi there, would you be so kind as to provide an indepenant neutral opinion of the image Construccionkaiserrick.jpg at the section of the same name on the talk page of Richmond Medical Center here please? Thank you very much as this may help to alleviate a current debate over its inclusion.Cholga^talK! 01:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I didn't get to that Talk page in time to make a comment (boy that moved fast!). Good show on respecting the decision that seems to have not gone the way you had hoped! Very graceful and respectful response! --ElKevbo 20:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

tcu revert

Greetings, any reason why sweet Greggo and the Snake from the Ticket are allowed to remain on the notable alumni page but Todd Carruth and Chip Waggoner from the number 1 rated TV morning news show in Dallas -Fort Worth are not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.132.34.130 (talk) 20:19, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

If there are other non-notable folks listed then please feel to remove them, too! Please don't remove folks as a means of "getting back at [me]" or as a means of revenge but if they're truly non-notable feel free to remove them. If you're unsure, go ahead and bring it up in the article's Talk page. --ElKevbo 20:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

That's the rub, isn't it. Who is "non-notable" and who isn't? I have never removed anyone and have no desire for revenge(huh?) and I know these guys are big TCU supporters and was just curious as to why you felt the need to revert my addition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.132.34.130 (talk) 20:31, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

As always, use Wikipedia standards for notable; local radio personalities don't make the cut. If an article about this person would be rejected for notability reasons, then they shouldn't be on the list. Redlinks are a good hint; as are listings whose editor didn't even bother to format as wikilinks. --Orange Mike 20:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Well said, Mike. I am happy to to admit that there is definitely some wiggle room, particularly for persons who are obviously notable but for whom a Wikipedia article has not yet been created. There may even be persons who are notable within the context of a particular article but not quite notable enough for their own article but I am hard pressed to think of an example or good way to judge that. --ElKevbo 20:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Odd question, completely off the wall -- or completely right

Are you an Airstreamer? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Sorry! --ElKevbo 16:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

One of the more active fellows over that the Airstream forums (a cult of which I am a new initiate) calls himself Kevbo, so I figured there was a 1/100 chance. Thanks! --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I'll be sure to hunt him down and force him to relinquish use of my name. There can be only one! :) --ElKevbo 18:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Krauthammer Neoconservative Association

ElKevbo.

I have respected your edits in the past. I will respect them now.

What say you in regards to this issue?

Since when is Neoconservative a pejorative term?

And even if that is so, the man has self-identified as a Neoconservative for probably NINE YEARS at least.

And He Himself has said NOTHING to the effect that he is NOT one now.

I believe that this can only be answered by probing the underlying intent of what people are trying to do here. If Krauthammer isn't a Neocon anymore, saying he is a -con is simply not sufficient. I believe it would take a WaPo column where he explicitly says this, then we can take the association down.

Do you NOT agree?

Aschoeff 19:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not terribly familiar with the article in question (most articles I edit are solely to remove obvious vandalism or violations of policy). In general, I don't think that "neoconservative" is pejorative although I am sure that some people use it in an pejorative sense (much like those on the other side of the political spectrum label others "liberal" as a pejorative term). If there is good evidence that he self-identifies as a neocon then I don't see the problem with having that in the article. If, however, there is good evidence that he does not or used to but has since changed then I think that common courtesy and policy demand that we not force the label upon him. If there is legitimate controversy over the label then the evidence should be presented and consensus respected absent any new evidence. --ElKevbo 19:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I will assemble some sources, and add them as footnotes. I believe though, that this debate will center around a muddying of the two terms "Neoconservative" and "Conservative." I firmly understand these two terms as Neoconservative being an invalid subset of Conservative, because Ron Paul calls himself a conservative, and Barry Goldwater would rather have died than call himself a Neoconservative. As such, at the very least, he should have both terms.

And he has not self-identitied as NOT being a Neocon. That much I am absolutely 100% sure about. I believe he leaves it purposefully vague, but that's disingenuous and I dislike disingenouism. Aschoeff 20:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Feedback on editing dispute and Rfc

Elkevbo, if you have some time could you take a look at a Rfc I filed last week and the discussion on the talk page (actually most of the page deals with some form of the same isssue): Talk:Covenant_College#Accreditation_section_issues Discussion has stalled with the editors involved, and there's been no input from Rfc editors (see the talk page: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment#Help on asking for help...but I want to see this through, whether or not it's with these editors or other editors, or closing the Rfc. But I'm moving rapidly into WP:DICKdom, and first I need some feedback and perspective. My first experience with Wikipedia was reading the pages and pages of discussion between you and a certain argumentative term paper troll, and I remember how you were able to stay clear and calm...I went through the a similar ordeal with the same link troll family, and while this is the same feeling of just being argued to death, this is a different environment. Thanks for any help. Flowanda | Talk 09:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I really appreciated your input--especially seeing how busy you are. Have a good weekend!Flowanda | Talk 23:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Image you added to George W Bush article

Hello, I noticed you've been having an issue with an image that you've added to the foriegn perception section of the George W Bush article. I've started a conversation on the article's talk page in order to prevent an edit war. Last time I looked the image you added is still there so hopefully it won't be edited out until a consensus is reach from the discussion. Anyways, feel free to drop in to the talk page and check out the discussion :-) Elhector 17:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! And please note that I did not add the image; I have merely reverted undiscussed removal of the image as I believe to be appropriate and...well, I'll keep that part of the discussion on the article's Talk page. :) --ElKevbo 17:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, lol. I'll go back in the article history and see who added the image originally and see if they want to be invloved in the discussion. Sorry I screwed up the link to your user page over there, I'm still kind of new to Wikipedia so my Wiki markup skills are still a little rusty. Hopefully you understand why I'm taking the position against having the image there. It's nothing personal against you or the person that added it originally and it was really bothering me the way the disagreement was being handled over there. Reverting an edit that is clearly not vandalism and made in good faith without a discussion or at least giving a legitimage reason for the revert doesn't seem very fair to me and is downright un-wiki like, know what I mean? :-) Anyways, good luck with the debate on this over there :-) Elhector 17:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem! I understand that it's not personal...even if you are wrong. :) --ElKevbo 17:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Quick question, who was the original editor that added the image? I'm having some trouble discerning that from reading the article history. The article history is kind of confusing because there are so many edits to the article. Thanks! Elhector 18:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

It is a very busy article. The image appears to have been added by Dfrg.msc on 20:24, July 14, 2007. --ElKevbo 19:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Motley Crue

Hey there. Big thanks for hacking away at the Motley Crue spam~! I'm trying to tear down its trivia section, though User: ASniper keeps blocking me. If you can lend a hand, I'd be much obliged. --Dylanfly 17:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

MIT mergers

I am soliciting comments on a spate of proposed MIT mergers from editors like yourself who have made significant contributions to university-related articles. Madcoverboy 19:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)