Jump to content

User talk:ElKevbo

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

John Jay Article

[edit]

Hey, I don't know how to leave a signature so sorry about that but saw your edit. Those were college majors (have provided a link to the correct source), I don't know if it's against WP policy to list the majors the college offers (if it does, please feel free to let me know or undo it and I apologize) but wanted to give you the heads up. Anyway, it is dedicated to Criminal Justice, hence the college's name (John Jay College of Criminal Justice). Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.41.108.33 (talk • contribs) 22:16, November 4, 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Dr. Angela C. Meyers(Modern Polymathy studies)

[edit]

Hello ElKevbo,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Dr. Angela C. Meyers(Modern Polymathy studies) for deletion, because it's a redirect from an article title to a namespace that's not for articles.

If you don't want Dr. Angela C. Meyers(Modern Polymathy studies) to be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

SunloungerFrog (talk) 06:01, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia Tech Pop Culture Section

[edit]

I agree with your suggestion to delete the list of movie appearances added to the Georgia Tech article by an unregistered editor. Are you working on rewriting that section, or know any sources that might help in rewriting it to be less promotional? If not, it seems appropriate to simply delete the section. Is a wider consensus required for that? ElToAn123 (talk) 23:01, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not planning to rewrite that section and do not personally know of any helpful sources. You are welcome to edit the article as you believe is appropriate and helpful. ElKevbo (talk) 23:12, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 1 May 2025

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:16, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Technological University

[edit]

My edit regarding the antisemitic incident on campus and the school's response was removed. I agree with the general feedback that "a dispute between college roommates doesn't typically rise to the level of inclusion in an encyclopedia article..." However, this was not a routine dispute, and the focus of the edit was on the school's failed response.

If this had been a typical incident, the school likely would not have issued a formal press release, let alone distributed it widely through a wire service. The fact that the school chose to publicly acknowledge the incident and release an official statement via a third-party distribution platform strongly suggests that even the school considered the matter significant and unusual.

Additionally, I disagree with characterizing an antisemitic incident that led to a criminal trial and conviction as merely a "dispute between students," even if those students were roommates. Omitting the school’s failed response to such an incident (especially one it addressed publicly) risks undermining the neutrality and completeness of the article. Izidore10 (talk) 23:06, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. But be careful to keep any such addition neutral and aligned with reliable sources. ElKevbo (talk) 22:58, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Waldorf University

[edit]

I did add a topic once notifying you that we have been declared a non-profit by the DOE and I offered to send you the letter from the DOE as proof. I do not know why IPEDS or the DOE have not updated their databases yet, but we have official documentation to prove our status. If you would like to see it so you can stop changing our page, please contact me and I will be happy to send you a copy of the letter. Thank you. WaldorfUniversity1903 (talk) 15:49, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I sent ElKevbo a message a few weeks ago asking if it was possible that the lack of updates on IPEDS is due to the Trump administration's cuts at the department, and he said it was possible. Yet he keeps edit warring with users on the page. I think we should make an exception for this odd situation, especially since the univ. confirms that they are non-profit officially now. wizzito | say hello! 20:17, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
wizzito, I am perfectly fine if you want to take responsibility for this kind of edit to the article. Please note that the current version of the article is pretty sloppy and needs to be cleaned up - we usually don't explicitly say that an institution is "non-profit" or "not-for-profit" in the infobox or lede sentence as that is so common that it's not worth pointing out. ElKevbo (talk) 22:57, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

University of North Texas

[edit]

I wanted to follow up on your recent edit tagging the UNT Fact Books citation with "failed verification." That seemed a bit disproportionate, especially since the citation points directly to UNT’s own archived Fact Books — a publicly accessible, institutionally maintained source. I had just repaired a broken [1] link and matched it to the citation format to help the reference system function properly.

What stood out to me was your use of the phrase "hand wave" in the 'Edit summary'. That felt somewhat dismissive – vague, imprecise, and, tonally, anti-collaborative – particularly when paired with the strong "failed verification" tag. I am mindful that the Fact Books are primary references. But they are published by a scholarly institution that, among other things, answers to State audits and peer review. Those books, quite possibly, are the most reliable references available. Newspapers, peer-review journals, and government agencies who publish similar data likely get the data from the Fact Books. Those books are part of the University's official documentation for historical data like institutional names, enrollment, and academic structure. That seems squarely within the bounds of appropriate use for a primary source.

Also, just to clarify: using a primary source doesn't constitute a failed verification under Wikipedia policy — unless the claim is not actually supported by the source. If the concern is that a secondary source would be stronger, then I enthusiastically will/would jump on it (or discuss it). But that would be more in line with a [better source needed] or [additional citation(s) needed] template, not a "fail" tag.

I'm happy to work together to refine or clarify the citation, but I do think it's fair to ask that we keep the tone and editorial assumptions collegial. Tanx! — Eurodog (talk) 18:24, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ [[#CITEREF|]].
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ElKevbo&oldid=1288602389"