User talk:ElKevbo
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archives |
---|
[edit] botched "joke" thing
Just to let you know, I've posted an apology on the talk page - I was wrong, my bad. Dubc0724 16:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- I saw your message and responded there. Well done! I'm happy to put this behind us and get back to the business of writing an encyclopedia. --ElKevbo 16:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Nice user page!
If you're not using your user page, you should try redirecting it to your talk. Or is this a statement on the futility of userpages in general? yandman 12:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
- It's a bit of a statement on user pages and their general content. I prefer to be judged by my contribution history rather than anything I have to say on my user page. It's also a parody of the blank pages you often find in US government manuals/documentation that are blank except for the statement "This page left intentionally blank." I always chuckle when I see those pages. --ElKevbo 12:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Kerry article
May I recommend that you issue the same commentary and advice to other authors of the disputed section of the article? I feel it would be more beneficial if it was spread across more evenly. --PeanutCheeseBar 02:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell, the other editors involved are much more experienced. I am less inclined to give experienced editors as much slack as I am newer editors. If, for example, I notice that Derex has violated the 3 Revert Rule then I am not inclined to warn him or her in any manner and will simply report the violation as I expect an editor that has been here for over a year to know our rules and community standards. --ElKevbo 02:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- I've seen it and I'm aware of the 3RR. It's customary to advise new users of the rule, so that they don't get blocked by surprise. I don't believe I have violated it, but if I have I'll self-revert. Edit warring is never good, and I did try to sit this one out for a couple days, after initially protesting the section (see talk). It got to the point where there was so much spin and half-truth that I got tired of it and re-entered. However, I probably should have just sect-pov tagged it, and left it at that. Actually forgot about that remedy, and I'm content with it. At any rate, as I've said on talk, I have no intention of deleting anything since a proportional article clearly can't be maintained. I do however object to selective removal of sourced facts (and references themselves) that may be troublesome for PCB's POV. Derex 02:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- If nothing else, I would agree that POV-section tagging the section is best at this point; however, there really is no great or obvious benefit for vigilante authors who decide to step out of discussion and edit something still in dispute, and judging by the above comment, it seems Derex was doing just that. I can't say that I am a newer editor, as I've created and edited articles for at least half a year now, and spent time reading up on Wikipedia's rules and formatting. However, since Derex was not cooperatively participating in the current discussion, I viewed him as something of a vigilante, viewed his actions to be vandalism, and since other authors have reverted his edits several times (in some cases back to an edit I made), I view the reverts as combating vandalism; the material I removed was critical of only one party, or undermined the importance of the event. I have no problem leaving in material so long as it is well-sourced, and retains the NPOV balance of the article; if nothing else can be added to eliminate POV in the article, then it simply doesn't belong in the first place. --PeanutCheeseBar 03:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Zen Internet
Thanks for your cleanup work there, it's definitely improved. —Chowbok ☠ 04:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- You're welcome! Let's see if the changes stick... --ElKevbo 05:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Why do you keep removing stuff from Providence Catholic High School
You have a history of reverting the PCHS Wikipedia. Why? How come I can't put the playoff run of Celtics (with sources) but someone can put "Celtics are B.A.!" without having it deleted. Kyle Cornwell and Tommy Lenahan are valuable Alumni so why are they being deleted constantly? And what's wrong with Conor Meegan Day!? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DaClint (talk • contribs) 13:32, November 12, 2006.
- Let's look at your latest edits:
- You assert that "Coach Cogs" is slated to win the 7A IHSA State Title" but this assertion is unsupported by the provided citation. It's also purely speculative.
- You assert that "Providence won 4 stright [sic] against..." which is fine by me as it is supported by the provided citation.
- You added "Zach Panfil" as an alumnus which is unsupported by any citations or other evidence. I also don't know but question whether or not the NFL keeps records of "pancakes."
- You added a current teacher as a noteable alumnus. I'm sure he's a great guy but he simply doesn't rise to the level of noteability necessary for inclusion in an encyclopedia.
- You added a current college football player as a noteable alumnus. Again, he doesn't rise to the level of noteability necessary for inclusion in an encyclopedia.
- As evidenced by the current AfD discussion, Conor Meegan definitely doesn't rise to the level of noteability necessary for inclusion in an encyclopedia.
- What in the world does Church's Chicken have to do with a high school? Are they merely a sponsor of some athletic events or teams? If so, it doesn't warrant a link in the article. If not, the link must be explained because it's entirely unclear.
- What is the connection between Joseph Saidu Momoh and this high school? Merely adding an "External link" (and it's not an external link; it's an internal link to another Wikipedia article) is completly insufficient to explain the connection.
- So that's why I've reverted many or all of your edits. I'm sorry that you mey feel that I'm unfairly targetting you or your edits. I believe my reasoning is pretty solid but I encourage you to continue asking questions or challenging my reasons if you disagree or don't understand. In the meantime, I'm going to go through and remove many of the above edits one-by-one and explain why so it's more clear to you and everyone else. --ElKevbo 19:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Barnstars
I'm not ignoring the talk page. The self-ref was there before it was taken down. Until a better solution is found. I think it should saty there. Since the opinion was evenely divided, this seems like a fair thing to me. --evrik (talk) 04:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- I disagree but I'll wait for others to weigh in. Continuing an edit war does no good. --ElKevbo 04:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Good Humor | ||
Thanks evrik (talk) 05:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC) |
-
- Thanks. If you start handing out too many Barnstars for working on the Barnstar article you're going to overwhelm Wikipedia with irony and break it. :) --ElKevbo 05:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Black people
FWIW, your version is an improvement. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 01:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Dictionary.com
It's the most influential dictionary in the world because it so accessible and convenient. Everyone's on the web these days and anytime they don't know a word it's the first place they go. It's a great reference, and the fact that its on-line makes it easy for people to check our references out. Kobrakid 01:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Accessibility does not imply reliability or accuracy. I do not defer to dictionary.com as an authoritative source on something as particular, nuanced, and controversial as definitions of race. It's not really worth arguing about or discussing though as there are other more pressing problems in this particular article. It's definitely got the meat for a great article but the arrangement and composition are very lacking in many places. In other words: we've got bigger fish to fry. :) --ElKevbo 01:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Unreferenced section on Brown University article
Hi, are there particular statements in the Brown University campus description that you find needs references? CApitol3 02:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- I didn't see any references provided for any of the factual statements in those sections. I thought it easier and better to use the {{unreferencedsect}} template than to tag nearly every sentence with {{fact}}. -- ElKevbo 21:53, November 27, 2006 (CDT)
[edit] ExplorerCDT
This is why I ask for discussion on changes involving Rutgers related articles, ExplorerCDT left this message on my user page.
Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.
Without implying in any fashion a sense of ownership, please stop fucking up article I've worked on by adding things that don't belong (timeline, bad form in creating two-sentence sections, etc.). I've told you before, and in this case the information you segregated as "timeline" is already in the article, and if it isn't figure a way to incorporate it in the text. How many times do I have to tell you to stop such unjustified changes. STOP renaming articles in violation of the guidelines regarding naming (common names, for one), sectioning off short one, two or three sentence sections, adding puerile or redundant "timelines" and other "fluff" that I've brought up to you before. Further reversions or edits in this regard will be reported as vandalism. —ExplorerCDT 23:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
-
This is your last warning.
The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.
Cheers --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 16:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- From what little I have seen (I have not thoroughly researched this nor do I intend to right now) he appears to be acting like a jerk. I *think* I've had similar but more well-mannered encounters with ExplorerCDT as he does seem to think he owns the Rutgers article but I haven't looked into my edit history to confirm that suspicion. I'll try to weight in when he gets too far out of hand but it's best not to react when someone cries out for attention through misbehavior. Go ahead and make good-faith edits and if ExplorerCDT reverts them and I disagree then I'll say something. --ElKevbo 17:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] References in Brown University
I see you added some {{unreferencedsect}} tags to the Brown University page. Is there something in particular you feel needs citation, or did the article just look generally reference-sparse? DMacks 08:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- Please look up a few paragraphs on this Talk page. :) --ElKevbo 13:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- D'oh:/ DMacks 20:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Coulter - mistake?
Kev - I saw your edit "I think you made a mistake, Lou," but I can't make sense of what is going on there. The diffs show all kind of old stuff with newer stuff mingled in. Do you know what happened? Lou Sander 04:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- It looked like the entire contents of the Talk page were written over with the contents of another page (one of the AfD pages, IIRC). Your user account was the one associated with the edit. I'm not sure what happened - mistake on your end, obscure Wikimedia bug, glitch in the Matrix, etc. It was easy to spot and easier to fix. No big deal Lou! --ElKevbo 15:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- Most interesting. I can't imagine what I might have done to cause it, but computers do funny things sometimes. I HAVE been having some glitches with a new wireless keyboard, wherein mysterious keystrokes, including inserts/deletes, pop up from time to time. That might be at the root of it, but it seems pretty farfetched. Anyway, thanks for fixing the problem, and if I was at the root of it, I sure didn't MEAN to be, and I wasn't aware that it happened. Lou Sander 15:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Please sign posts on Talk pages
OK, thanks for the advice, I'm new to this site. Can I ask you something else (forgive me if it sounds stupid)? If I answer your message on my talk page, will you be notified? Or do I (like now) have to edit your talk page? Thanks in advance.Stavol2 00:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- No, I won't be "notified" if you edit your talk page. I will, however, see on my Watchlist as any page you edit is, by default, placed on your Watchlist. You only get the orange bar at the top of your screen if someone edits your talk page specifically.
- As to your other question about whether to reply here or on your talk page: it's personal preference. I prefer to keep discussions on the page on which they originated because if we place every other message on different pages the conversation quickly becomes difficult to follow. Other editors always reply on the Talk page of the person who left the message.
- And it certainly wasn't a stupid question at all! You're off to a good start here! --ElKevbo 00:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Rammstein.
http://www.unk.be/what_is_dance_metal_detailed.htm
"German band Rammstein calls their music 'Tanz Metal', German for 'Dance Metal'."
"Ph. of Beyond Webzine is one of them. He wrote in his review about our first CD: "Rammstein has tried to seduce the public with their "Tanz Metal", but it was too square, too repititive, too industrial and in the end not very danceable."
If you still disagree, I urge you to go through every Rammstein album and remove the "Tanz-Metall" genre. Or else, as I said, you'll have just filled the discog with a false genre. --Ryouga 05:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- But I still don't see in that source where they get that from i.e. when and where did "Rammstein call their music 'Tanz Metal'?" It'd be perfectly appropriate to say that "So-and-so claims that Rammstein says..." but I'm sure that you can see that we're beginning to stretch things a bit.
- My issue isn't with the Tanz Metal label. I don't care about the label you apply to this band or their music. But the sources that have been cited supporting the assertions that have been made are insufficient. --ElKevbo 05:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
If that's the case I shall reword it if I re-add it, according to the critic in the link I gave. I didn't realize the problem is whether they said it - I honestly don't know, but you can find countless claims that they have though. I understand what you are saying though. --Ryouga 06:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for December 4th.
Weekly Delivery |
---|
|
||
Volume 2, Issue 49 | 4 December 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
|
|
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Sewanee, The University of the South
Thanks for catching my mistake—it was indeed a mistake. I noticed the vandalism (statements about Micah Zimmermann taking walks or some such) and thought I reverted it, but I seem to have saved the wrong version of the page! Wareh 16:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- You're welcome! I've done the same thing myself - it's an easy mistake to make! --ElKevbo 16:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] BHS
Hi, I think this information is relevant to the Current lives of BHS students. Please follow up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kgregory (talk • contribs) 03:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC).
- I disagree. With all due respect, they're high school students. They're also likely elected or nominated each semester or year thus leading to issues related to the WP:DATING policy. It's simply not information that should be presented in a global encyclopedia as Wikipedia is neither a directory nor an indiscriminate collection of information. It creates a maintenance problem, is useful or interesting to a very tiny minority of visitors, and fails to rise to the expected level of notability for inclusion in an encyclopedia. I'd recommend moving this conversation to the Talk page of the article if we're to continue discussing this issue. --ElKevbo 03:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Sure, I will do that and I would appreciate any help i could get! Thanks!
[edit] Epistemic Merit Model... Uncalled For?
hello "ElKevbo"... you recently removed my contribution to the propaganda page (if you don't remember that would by the Epistemic Merit Model of Propaganda) for the reason that it didn't warrant an "entire section" since it gave "undue weight to a theory newly develeped and published in one cited journal article"... this seems like a valid reason for downplaying its significance... not deleting it. honestly, i have no problem with it being deleted, as long as you also delete "The Propaganda Model" section, which, it could be argued, gives undue weight to a left-wing, singe-source-cited conception of propaganda (is ten extra years really enough time to make an idea worthy of enshrinement?). i tried to be very clear in my contribution that that it was a model of propaganda that was advanced by one person in a journal article... please be more thoughtful the next you delete something and either restate it so as to de-emphasize it (if that was indeed your problem with the section) or to also delete other things that match the same line of critique you give as the reason for deletion.
thank you. Oliverstwist11 23:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you for the feedback. That article is a pretty big mess. It's such a mess that I quite honestly don't know where to start to clean it up. I try to do what I can to prevent it from becoming "worse" and I apologize if my deletion appeared to be abrupt or uncalled for. If there are other sections similarly supported by only one source or otherwise given undue weight, please be bold and work on or delete them, too. --ElKevbo 23:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] By the way...
What is a "flawed misunderstanding". Does that make it an understanding of some sort? =P Mael-Num 00:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Derek Smart
Please don't leave the discussion. Although I understand your frustrations, I feel your additions to this subject are important and I'd hate to see you leave. - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 05:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Newington Dispute
Please help by writing a replacement article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Silveriver (talk • contribs) 10:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC).
- They are not well-intentioned edits, They are coming from sockpuppets of the school trying to make themselves look good, Have a allot at this dif [1] DXRAW 20:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- I agree that some of the edits are a bit extreme, particularly the early ones. But the section is clearly way too long and we'd all benefit if those who are interested in and knowledgeable of the institution and this incident could work together to edit that section such that it is (a) accurate and (b) in proper weight and context with the rest of the article. --ElKevbo 22:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Debt arbitration
Hello,
Thank you for your stub submission. You may wish to note that it is preferable to use a stub template from Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types instead of using simply {{stub}}, if you can.
Thanks! --Vox Causa 04:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks. Was gonna get there briefly but concentrating on removing the blatant link spam first. Appreciate the help and the suggestion! --ElKevbo 04:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Plagiarism
I didn't mean that the Wiki articles were sufficient. I meant that the Wiki articles had sources. I'm now going through the laborious process of transferring your deleted content back to the page, along with references. Next time, don't just remove them; put the references from the original articles there. It'll save everyone a lot of trouble and keep meaningful, cited material on that page. Zz414 18:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- The material I removed was not cited. --ElKevbo 18:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)