User talk:ElKevbo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives
August 2005 – July 2006 August 2006 – October 2006 November 2006 – February 2007

[edit] George Bush GAR

If you look about mid-way through the GAR (it's in the archives), the nominator withdrew his/her nomination. That is where I got my speedy keep from. I meant to close it sooner, but I really haven't been here a while. Diez2 16:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

But others had already supported the GAR and if GAR is analogous to AFD then the GAR can not be withdrawn at that point. It's a good policy and I don't think it should have been closed in that manner (I would have been perfectly happy with a "Keep" closure as that seemed to be pretty close to consensus). --ElKevbo 16:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Does it matter?

Does this really matter? The result was that the article was kept as a GA. And yes, if a nomination is withdrawn, a new nomination must be given, according to AFD standards and practices. The trouble is that others kept on supporting a "keep" consensus when indeed the nomination had been withdrawn. I just was really late in closing it.Diez2 01:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Coffin

I was not advertising on the Coffins page, and since you're an avowed evolutionary atheist, I wonder why you think you're the GOD of Wikipedia? The information I provided did NOT mention any manufacturer, but DID mention a specific firm name because it would have been useless to say that "once upon a time a funeral home in a faraway state south of Pennsylvania..." Naming the firm that departs from a normal regional practice is no different than stating that Americans call coffins caskets. I suppose such a statement by anyone other than yourself would constitute advertsing for the United States.

At any rate, my post about the firm in South Carolina is completely valid, and is in no way meant to attract business to the firm. It is posted for the information of the reader only, and points out the fact that regional variations in the manufacturing of American caskets are not always observed, and this firm is a prime example.

As to my editing the page to point this out, there is nothing wrong with it, and I'll keep putting it up as often as you insist on taking it down. I guess that's the inherent beauty AND disgusting feature of Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Swc789rjp (talk • contribs) 12:11, March 8, 2007.

I tend to agree with Maustrauser's removal of your contribution to the Coffin article. It does appear at first glance to be rather odd and advertisement-like. It might help us if you could cite some reliable sources that support your assertions.

I also take issue with your insistence that you will continue to replace the material after it has been removed. That's not how we work here and you're likely to get yourself blocked in short order if you continue along that path. Please discuss your additions on the appropriate Talk pages and I'm sure we can come to a mutually agreeable compromise.

Finally, please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) when you post on Talk pages. --ElKevbo 17:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I am most familiar with the "vandalism" guidelines for Wiki, and am absolutely NOT guilty of such, no matter how many times I'm "warned" of such behavior. Since you seem so sure that my information constitutes "advertising", why don't YOU provide reliable data that confirms YOUR assertion? Advertising is use of some form of media to obtain business from the viewer of said media. My posting does nothing of the sort, unless you believe that I'm convinced that parlaying the information that I did will in short order convince an entire continent of readers to make plans to employ a firm in SC to handle their burial because of the information posted on WIKI. Nonsense. What a ridiculous assertion. In the field of funeral service, a lot of people have no clue what types of caskets are used in various parts of the U.S., and my post simply made that clear. Not mentioning the firm's name would have left the scope of the information bare, and as much as you might dislike it, it is NOT politically incorrect to establish the name of a business when relating the practices of said business. Can you imagine Dateline NBC running a story on, say, a scandal involving an oil-change firm if the firm in question were never named in the story? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Swc789rjp (talk • contribs) 12:47, March 8, 2007.

Okay, not advertisement. But still unsourced. How about placing your recommended edits on the articles' Talk pages first since other editors obviously object to them? Work it out there instead of belligerently adding the material and re-adding it when someone removes it, please.

Please (a) tone down your aggressiveness as it's unnecessary and unwelcome and (b) sign your posts on Talk pages. --ElKevbo 17:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

May the avowed evolutionary atheist (I like that title) pop in and suggest that if this information is essential regarding cultural differences across the US then a subsection is created that outlines these differences and mentions a range of different casket shapes (not just the company being highlighted's offering) and provide citatations for this information. It would be much more encyclopaedic. Maustrauser 21:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Link Spam on Social Networks

Sr. El Kevbo,

There is chronic link spam on the Social Networks article. Thank you for reverting today's. What do you think of a more general solution of putting in a box at the top that points people to the social networking software article -- which is a better place for an announcement of the many networking programs that are coming out. In some ways, it's offloading the problem which is not a disaster. But it is also direct folks to where there links more properly belong. Bellagio99 23:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I would think that link spam is unwelcome no matter what article to which it is added. I'm sure that all of the articles related to this topic are magnets for spam and we'll just need to keep our eye on them and keep fighting the good fight. If it ever gets too bad, we can always request a temporary semi-protection to gain a brief respite. --ElKevbo 03:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear ElKevbo,

Yet one article's link spam might be another article's useful info. In this case, the social networking software article might benefit from an accreted list of such software which software folks are now (attempting) to put on the main social networks page. Unless you or others object strongly (I am going to sign off soon and see if there are more comments), I would like to experiment with putting a box near the top of the social networks page directing people to the software page. But I don't know how to do this. I can put the [] on each side, but centering, boxing, etc. are beyond my Wiki ken at the moment. I can't believe that there is no Wikipedia for Dummies. Could you help with the formatting if I write the text, or just guide me?

Bellagio99 03:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd recommend you place such a note in an HTML comment in the "External links" section. That would be visible to editors who are trying to add new links but it wouldn't be visible to the casual reader. If you look in articles, you'll see those kinds of notes to editors in a lot of places as it's relatively common. Try it and see if it works. And let me know if you need help! --ElKevbo 04:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. I will, but not tonight. Tomorrow is another day, and I have miles to go before I finish proofreading an article for a journal. Bellagio99 04:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Let me know if I can help! I've got to spend time this weekend on my own writing and research so I empathize with your need to prioritize your time. --ElKevbo 04:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks El Kevbo for the help offer and general advice. I just did the edit myself, and it looks pretty good. Couldn't figure out how to box it, though, to make it look more authoritative;-) If you have a chance, please take a look at the top of Social Network External Links -- and give me feedback and tips for the future. Bellagio99 13:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WaC Discussion & Article

E- You are correct in that it should have been archived instead of deleted. Unfortunately I did not think of it and just acted on getting the loads of backed up fights and nonsense off the discussion page (I was closed-minded). Thanks for fixing my error in judgement & thought ... & my apologies. D-Hell-pers 08:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh - and thanks for also cleaning up my reference citations on the article itself. I am still kind of new with learning the codings and such. D-Hell-pers 08:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome! Let me know if you need any more help. --ElKevbo 08:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll be sure to check in when I think my mess could be cleaned up :-p D-Hell-pers 09:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arbcom case diff needed

You recently compiled and listed a case at requests for checkuser. A checkuser or clerk has requested you supply one or more diffs to justify the use of the checkuser procedure in the case, in accordance with the procedures listed in the table at the top of the requests for checkuser page. For an outcome to be achieved, we require that you provide these diffs as soon as possible. This has been implemented to reduce difficulties for checkusers, and is essential for your case to be processed. A link to your recently-created case which has this information missing is here. Thanks for your co-operation. -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC), checkuser clerk.

Nevermind, I missed your link. For a first case I can't say that went smoothly. I edited your request to make the link more visible. Sorry about that ;) -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem. As you can see on the RFCU page, I bungled the original request a bit, too. What a pair we are! :) --ElKevbo 16:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I just re-filed for Supreme Cmdr. (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 18:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dubious claims

I had a look at your edit of Farrer Memorial Agricultural High School, and I agree wholeheartedly with your decision. The claims you deleted were not just dubious, they were bona fide falsehoods, basically something created at school one day (quite literally, considering the article and edit). I'll leave a note on the IP talk page reminding of that, if you haven't already. --JB Adder | Talk 08:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] protecting Comfort women

I am partway compassable to your advocacy about source. But I can't be compassable to your saying that "the article is" complete with accusations of bias, racism, historical revisionism. First of all this problem was occured by Seiji Yoshida's evidence. But this evidence was already confirmed to be false evidence. As I think, if there is a problem, the problem is that Japanese and their governmet were backward to explain the fact and discussions in Japan to the world people like you. Please read this paper first. This is U.S.Military report. In this report,there are a distinct proof of "Confort wommen"'s high wage [1]. In this report an average month a girl would gross about fifteen hundred yen. This is more than double wages of full general Tojo Hideki(東条英機）'s(6600yen by year). Of course high wage dosen't means no problem. But at least we can know from this fact that the situation of "comfort women" was not the dependent on government but a business connection. Thanks.Tropicaljet 17:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you may be misunderstanding the phrase I used to describe the interactions between the article's editors. I did not mean that the article is in any way "complete" as in done or finished. I was describing the interactions between the editors who are clearly engaged in hostile interactions including (or, more idiomatically, "complete with") accusations of bias, racism, etc. I don't think that's a subjective judgment; the Talk page and the article's history clearly prove that it's an objective way to describe the interactions between the various editors.

I am disappointed that some of the editors of the article are not only promoting a very one-sided view of this subject but actually deleting references and information with which they disagree. That's not how we do things here. If you disagree with information presented in an article AND that information is well-sourced, you must find different information that is also well-sourced and insert that information. I'm not accusing you of doing this - this is a general observation. --ElKevbo 17:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. In general, I agree on your opinion. But I reverted your edit, bcause your edit in first paragraph was written in a very one-sided view. I will do my best to find different information that is also well-sourced and insert that information. So please take care about not being in a very one-sided view. Thanks. Tropicaljet 18:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Which edit and reversion are you talking about? There have been quite a few in that article. :) --ElKevbo 18:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I am talking about this edit[2]. By the way, I think this problem is a Asahi Shinbun problem in a simple term. They reported Seiji Yoshida's evidence without doing some back research. Although it was proved that the evidence was a novel, the paper hasn't offered apologies for readers in a definite manner. Almost all Japanese people are amazed the paper. But we haven't explained about it to the world people like you yet. It's a big job for Japanese who can't use English readily. Thanks. Tropicaljet 18:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what that has to do with your removal of references from, among others, CNN, BBC, The New York Times, The Age, and the University of North Carolina. I don't really know how one could justify removing all of those references but I'd like to hear your side of the story. --ElKevbo 19:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I reverted only because the first paragraph was edited in a very one-sided view. The deletions of other paragraphes was out of my intention. But about first paragraph, it must be detachment, so I think some informations must be moved to later parts. I will take care of not deleting informations. So plaese take care of not being in a very one-sided view. Thanks. Tropicaljet 20:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, ok. I'll keep an eye on the article and I hope you and the other editors can come to an amicable agreement and include all well-sourced information in a neutral manner. Happy editing! --ElKevbo 20:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your agreement. But the road to show the truth will be long. Not happy but breezily editing bit by bit! Thanks.Tropicaljet 21:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comfort women help

I wish you the best of luck in dealing with the Comfort women article. I have myself decided not to participate in the debate (the hostility of all the single purpose accounts & Ikeda drives me crazy + takes up to much damn time), but I want you to know that if you need any help with understanding the Japanese sources, I would be glad to help. I mean, you don't have to be very smart to realise that Nobuoikeda and all his meatpuppets are not exactly about to present any of the sources in a neutral manner. It's not that I can look up the books Ikeda is referring to (unfortunately), but if you have any Japanese website/newspaper article or anything similar you'd like me to give you a summary of, don't hesitate to leave a message on my talk page. While I'm not a native speaker, I do hold a level 1 JLPT certificate. Again, best of luck, Mackan 18:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for March 20th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 12	20 March 2007	About the Signpost

WikiWorld comic: "Wilhelm Scream"	News and notes: Bad sin, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation


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 07:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] my page

Hi. Thank you so much for reverting vandalism from my userpage. I was about to revert it but you were faster at doing so. My page gets frequently vandalised, and I appreciate it that some users actually revert vandalism to my page before I do. Even though my page is semi-protected, I still experience some vandalism, as I actually predicted there would still be vandalism to my pages. I appreciate the reverting. Thanks. A stroHur ricane 00 1^{(Talk+Contribs+Ubx)} 21:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome! --ElKevbo 21:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Greatgallsoffire

Nah mate he just wrote his username as GreatGallsoffire note the Caps he did not sign using ~~~~ DXRAW 22:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Really? Then please explain this edit. Unless I'm mistaken, you edited his "proper" signature to replace it with the unsigned template for no apparent reason. --ElKevbo 23:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

You are mistaken, Have a look at have the differences between his user name and the signed name "Greatgallsoffire" compared to "GreatGallsoffire" & the differences between his date "21.03 March 22 2007" and my signed date "21:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)" Mine has a : instead of a . & the addition of the (UTC) DXRAW 23:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

So? They're free to customize their signatures. --ElKevbo 23:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

True, But that was not a customized one. DXRAW 23:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It was still a signature and you had no right to tamper with it. Is it because you are angry thaty I am disagreeing with you at Gary Glitter? Given that I didnt know about the squiggles it strikles me you werent being very nice Greatgallsoffire 22:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Student government names in the Biloxi High School article

Hi ElKevbo,

I saw the Biloxi High School article after seeing the deletion discussion about it. As I mentioned in a comment at the deletion discussion, I'm concerned about naming all these students in the Wikipedia article. These are my reasons, as I mentioned in the discussion:

There are extensive lists in the article of names of student government officers. I think that's (a) unlikely to be referenced; (b) I'm uncomfortable giving the world their names, even though it's high school, not elementary or middle school; (c) probably going to attract vandals; and (d) there's a slight possibility of libel. All in all it's a bad idea to have it, so I'm going to delete the list. I'll repost this on the talk page.

I think the strongest reason is that the names are attractive for vandals to fiddle with. I see on the article's talk page that you were uncomfortable with the names too, and I got the impression from the discussion there that the decision was to not list the names, but I see them on the page. I'd like to remove them, but I'd like your opinion before I do it. The more I think about it, the more I like the reasons you gave in that discussion. Noroton 04:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

IIRC, I was opposed to the names being listed as they present a maintenance challenge and, IMHO, lack notability. If the names are not verifiable then not only does that present a Wikipedia-unique concern but it may also present a privacy concern as you have raised.

I remain in favor of removing the lists of names. I have not pressed the issue as there were very few editors involved, I was the only one who held this opinion, and it's not worth edit-warring over. If you want to remove them then I'll support your actions. --ElKevbo 05:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

You will not on the Biloxi High School talk page that I was the one who fought the deletion of the names to start off with. I have no problem with that anymore. I just want to be able to keep the site. Thanks For Everything that you all do! --Kendall Gregory 01:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks :)

Thanks ElKevbo :) the task is not completely thankless even if some grumps jump in. Signed Jeepday 13:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] David Westerfield

Do you see what I have to deal with now? According to that user, he is NEVER wrong. He wants the article to read like a transcript now. Fighting for Justice 18:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Returned favor thanks...

I appreciate you reverting that bizarre message on my talk page. I have no clue what that person was referring to & why they would have picked my user talk page...Weird. -- Scientizzle 19:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I did not do edit warring

Hello, I saw your warning on my user talk page for "edit warring". However, I was only using TWINKLE to revert the removal of content without stating reason by an anon user. I did it from good faith, so please assume good faith. Thank you!

[edit] The coveted Spamstar of Glory

		The Spamstar of Glory
		Presented to ElKevbo for diligence in fighting spam on Wikipedia. --A. B. ^(talk) 01:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Skapsis

An article that you have been involved in editing, Skapsis, has been listed by me for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skapsis. Thank you. --A. B. ^(talk) 03:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Concerning Louisiana State University

How's it going. Your edit helped me realize that when I corrected the $100 Billion dollar endowment, I put in $593,203 instead of 593 million, so thanks for that. But also, 4.4 billion is WAY too high for LSU's endowment. I'll go change the numbers and put my source back in that I provided. Boznia 12:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for March 26th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 13	26 March 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Tardiness, volunteers, RSS
Patrick and Wool resign in office shakeup	WikiWorld comic: "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo"
News and notes: Board resolutions, milestones	Features and admins
The Report on Lengthy Litigation


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 13:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stem cell

Sorry for the bot edit-warring on Stem cell, but that article is not currently protected: as you see here, the last protection has expired on 21:46, 28 March 2007. Tizio 12:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem - I didn't even notice the bot's edits as the first one occurred right before mine. I was just cleaning up after a vandal who hit a few different articles. --ElKevbo 14:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Newington College

They are WP:SPA with the intention of Disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point DXRAW 21:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

You've been owning that article for quite a while and preventing anyone from changing that section. You're reverting changes without any discussion with anyone. Please stop. --ElKevbo 21:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm preventing WP:SPAs from Disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. That is there only edit at all and they are incorrectly changing quotes from newspapers. DXRAW 21:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../e/l/k/User_talk%7EElKevbo_e2d2.html"