Wikipedia

User talk:ElKevbo/Archive 28

< User talk:ElKevbo
Latest comment: 1 year ago by MediaWiki message delivery in topic The Signpost: 16 January 2023
Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30Archive 31

Thanks

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

While checking out my watchlist I noticed you really improved Jefferson Community College (New York) which I significantly contributed to, and I just want to say thanks, I'm improving it because it's my local college but you're improving every article under the sun about universities and I think you could use this motivation to improve uni's articles to promote harvard to a GA which i've wanted to do but don't know how nor do I have the attention span to do. But thanks Lallint⟫⟫⟫Talk 18:57, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Lallint The main reason we'd want to focus on Harvard is that many inexperienced editors presume it'll be good and look to it as a model because they're unaware of WP:HED's actual showcase. So if Harvard e.g. got rid of its notable alumni gallery, that might help prevent them from cropping up elsewhere. The main reason not to focus on Harvard is that it's a huge lift, given that it's such a big topic and currently at such poor quality. I'd say any higher ed editors looking to devote some time to high-priority projects right now should instead be focused on saving Georgetown, which should be an easier lift and has a few editors already on it. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:20, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
You're welcome!
Sorry but I have little interest in improving articles about Harvard and other institutions that consistently receive way too much attention and influence. I would rather spend my volunteer time here working to improve many other articles. If you have any specific questions or requests as you work on that article, please let me know! ElKevbo (talk) 23:44, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Universities Research Association, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Atomic Energy Commission.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 February 2022

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:19, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Georgetown CEW Ranking

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Georgetown was not in the top 10. I will wait a few weeks to see how it is reported. Thanks for reviewing my work. Please note that the top 10 is:

  1. 1

University of Health Sciences and Pharmacy in St. Louis MO

  1. 2

Albany College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences NY

  1. 3

MCPHS University MA

  1. 4 (Tie)

California Institute of Technology CA

  1. 4 (Tie)

Massachusetts Institute of Technology MA

  1. 6

Charles R Drew University of Medicine and Science CA

  1. 7

Harvey Mudd College CA

  1. 8

Bentley University MA

  1. 9

Babson College MA

  1. 10

University of Pennsylvania PA

Click on below https://finance.yahoo.com/news/new-database-ranks-4500-us-colleges-by-return-on-investment-155443063.html To see Yahoo review of Georgetown University’s Center on Education and the Workforce (CEW) ranking of 4,500 colleges and universities based on their return on investment. OneMoreByte (talk) 05:25, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. I glanced at it when it was released a few days ago and I thought that one of the ways to sort the rankings - there are several - placed Georgetown at the top.
In any case, I still think that WP:NOTNEWS applies. Let's wait to see if this has any staying power and receives widespread use by scholars and experts or if, like most rankings or reports, it will quickly fade into obscurity without making much or any lasting impact. ElKevbo (talk) 05:29, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for educating me. I agree we should wait to see if CEW ranking system is used by scholars and experts (or journalists). My guess is that schools that were in top 10 like Babson and Bentley and the pharmacy schools will trumpet it. Time will tell. OneMoreByte (talk) 18:30, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Institute for Advanced Study of Human Sexuality

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I’d like to start a conversation with you on how to make edits to the school’s website that read as less biased? It currently has a huge slant towards the school being a diploma mill which it was not. Many esteemed sexologists graduated from the school and it should reflect a more moderate and less biased view for the readers. Listing it as a private university would be a big help. Later it can be noted that there was an eventual change from accredited to unaccredited throughout the years as a historical timeline. Please advise on any edits that can be made that you will allow as this article needs to be updated. Thanks. Anyadee23 (talk) 18:14, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for posting this message. I see that you've also opened a discussion in the article's Talk page. Let's keep the discussion there so no one gets confused or lost. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 21:27, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

User rapidly reverting your recent edits

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I want to let you know that a user, Veritasuber (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked just now. They registered and then reverted a good number of your contributions for no reason and I suspect they are an LTA. wizzito | say hello! 02:47, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up and the quick block. ElKevbo (talk) 02:53, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

Hi ElKevbo! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Requesting help with User:Cmard69, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread.


See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 March 2022

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  • Eyewitness Wikimedian, Vinnytsia, Ukraine: War diary
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:49, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited New York City College of Technology, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New York.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Principia College, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jonathan Gibbs.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Sorry about the brief edit-war on my part. My recollection of school-articles practice was that there was a strong stance against alumni redlinks. It's blue now, where I could add additional notability claims and others also. DMacks (talk) 22:17, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Daemen University

Latest comment: 2 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Edits that we are submitting are being reverted by you. The edits are being made by our Web Director from our Director of Institutional Communication. The recent upload about campus does not use external links. What are we doing wrong? ManHV1S1on (talk) 01:41, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Please begin by reviewing and complying with our policy about paid editing and our policy about conflicts of interest. Once you and your colleagues have done that, I'll be happy to discuss any substantive edits to that article that you think should be implemented. ElKevbo (talk) 02:07, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Well in that case how do universities make edits or I they just not allowed? Then why have you approved other institutions edits? We just want to find the best remedy as large gaps in the college's information including our history is missing. ManHV1S1on (talk) 03:15, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
People who have a strong conflict of interest with a subject are discouraged from editing articles about that subject, including those who work at colleges and universities (I don't make any substantive edits to the article for my current employer, for example). Instead, they are usually asked to make suggestions and requests in the article's Talk page. You are welcome to do that and we'd appreciate you helping make the article(s) more accurate and up-to-date! ElKevbo (talk) 03:19, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for your time. ManHV1S1on (talk) 23:31, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

OU-Tulsa Split Proposal

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi! I was wondering if you would mind weighing in on my split proposal for OU-Tulsa, made on the main University of Oklahoma talk page. I'm affiliated with the university and am not looking to make these changes or the page myself (I've already learned that lesson) but I do feel the split is warranted. Also, for the record, I am not whoever has been recently trying to edit the OU-Tulsa content on that page and am pretty annoyed that's going on considering I've been trying to get the thing split for so long. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeramypappas (talk • contribs) 17:05, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

@Jeramypappas: Thanks for the question and for opening the discussion. I've left a question in the article's Talk page about the proposed split. ElKevbo (talk) 15:43, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

re this edit to Pomona College

Latest comment: 2 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Hello. It is always a pleasure to educate learned people, and especially those from the United States of America. I am pleased to advise you that you are editing the English Language Wikipedia, a co-operative project to inform all English speaking readers - and not the Uncle Sam Almanack. You reverted a good faith and accurate edit, in a display of insular ignorance - a significant minority of people reading the article may not even know that there is a Claremont in a California (whatever that is!) but they may have heard of America. You may wish to enquire of some of your esteemed colleagues about the condition of unconscious bias; a condition where an individual is unaware that what may seem common knowledge to them is not always the case for other people and especially those from a different background. As a European editor of very many years experience (some of it actually productive) I find that many American editors are unaware of WP:MoS/Lead/first sentence, where it is noted that its purpose is to ensure every reader can quickly determine that they are viewing the correct article - such as, for instance, "Pomona College" in the United States. You may think that I am being specious, but it is my experience that, in a reverse Dunning-Kruger Effect, that some editors do not understand how much help a non expert reader needs. For instance, I am aghast that few Americans know where (or what) Ghent is while it is a vital part of their history... indeed, can you without googling (first result, likely Wikipedia) advise me why Ghent should be known by every American? If you can, you are in a minority. Per WP:3RR I am not going to revert your edit, as I hope you will do so yourself. I trust that you will also, in future, consider those for whom English is not their first language or America their place of residence when editing United States educational articles. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:12, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Please review WP:NPA before posting to my User Talk page again.
If you'd like to advocate for the inclusion of country in the lede sentence of every article about a college or university, you're welcome to do so; this may be the best place to do so. I would support such a proposal. But currently the de facto consensus is to not include it when there is no ambiguity about the location. ElKevbo (talk) 11:17, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
I am fully aware of WP:NPA, but would ask you why you would point to it specifically (and also gently comment that you have not addressed the "Ghent" matter). Per WP:Revert, I would note that an editor is not supposed to revert a good faith and accurate edit, but to open a dialogue where there may be a differing point of view. The edit summary provided by you was insufficient for that purpose and, possibly, condenscending. You removed relevant and non contentious information. Very many articles on United States specific subjects include the name of the nation, even those in respect of New York City or Marilyn Monroe, so I suggest that there is an existing consensus for the inclusion of same. I would point you to WP:Systemic bias in an effort to persuade you that because you, personally, do not believe there is another Claremont, California, (I do not know the Californias in the UK, so cannot say if there is a Claremont situated among them) is good reason to remove a parameter that allows search algorithms to find a college situated in the United States. Im short, I do not believe your edit to be grounded in best Wikipedia practice or equitable respect for fellow contributors. I would now ask you to re-instate my edit. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:31, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
I have opened a discussion at WT:HED. ElKevbo (talk) 16:00, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
I have commented there, and am content to abide by any consensus established. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:17, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 April 2022

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:39, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 May 2022

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:45, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

June 8: NYBG Environment of The Bronx - Editing Wikipedia for Beginners

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Wednesday June 8, 11am-5pm: New York Botanical Garden - Environment of the Bronx - Editing Wikipedia for Beginners
 

The LuEsther T. Mertz Library of the New York Botanical Garden and the Environment of New York City Task Force invite the general public of all experience levels to come to the Mertz Library in person and learn how to use Wikipedia! All skill levels welcome at the event! Experienced Wikipedia editors from the Wikimedia New York City chapter will be in attendance and available to help. A one hour training session will be offered at the start of this event covering introductory topics. Attendees familiar with editing Wikipedia can edit off of a worklist focused on the environment of New York City; as well as, a sub-list focused on the environment of the Bronx. The Mertz Library will pull topical media from their collection to assist the editing.

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:08, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

NYC Wiknic, June 26

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hold the date. Meetup/NYC Wiknic in Crotona Park, Sunday June 26.

Watch Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Wiknic June 2022 for further details as they become available.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:33, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

IP editor at Cooley

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

FYI, I suggested to user:Favonian, who blocked a whole series of IP addresses from editing the Cooley Law School article last Fall for disruptive editing, that the article be partially protected from IP edits, since the same IP editor keeps making the same edits, using a new address every few edits. You might care to weigh in on user talk: Favonian. Banks Irk (talk) 12:32, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Brenau University article

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello, ElKevbo. Firstly, I appreciate your dedication to keeping up with the vast number of Wikipedia pages for colleges and universities. I have a suggestion for the Brenau University page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brenau_University), but because I am employed by Brenau University I did not want to personally make edits to one of the sections and instead am reaching out to you as you have made numerous thoughtful edits. Regarding the section on legal issues, the lawsuit mentioned is no longer ongoing and I would request that be updated with the new information and reference or simply removed since the plaintiff filed for dismissal: https://www.gainesvilletimes.com/news/education/brenau-expelled-student-settle-retaliation-lawsuit/. Thanks, and keep up the good work! --Erogers3 (talk) 21:18, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Without more information, I don't think this warrants inclusion in an article. ElKevbo (talk) 21:22, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

TKE Chapters and Colonies List

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello ElKevbo,

I see you incorporated major edits into List of Tau Kappa Epsilon chapters and colonies in which substantial content was removed. I can get on board with the notion that charitable events and fundraising news could be removed, but I also saw that there was some content removed relating to the chapter houses while some content was kept. I wanted to touch base with you before any further edits, but I would prefer if content notes relating to chapter status (which you kept) and chapter houses (which some was removed) be both notable for inclusion.

Jmnbqb (talk) 10:51, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

@Jmnbqb: I recommend opening a discussion in the article's Talk page so that other editors interested in the topic can more easily participate. ElKevbo (talk) 17:23, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Boston College

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, appreciate the feedback on the Jesuit Ivy edit, but I do think the second part of the edit is warranted. The parallel that I drew was this line on Georgetown's page, "Georgetown is ranked among the top universities in the United States and admission is highly selective." Boston College appears on the same lists cited by the Georgetown article and has comparable admission rates (12% and 16% for the class of 2026). The two schools are also both categorized as "Most Selective" by US News rankings. Looking forward to hearing what you think, thanks. ps I do not work for the university — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bostonkiwi (talk • contribs) 16:47, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

I am not a fan of including that information in the lede of article but you are correct that many other articles do that so it would not be out of place in that article. If you readd it, please be sure to specify that the information only pertains to undergraduate admissions. ElKevbo (talk) 17:25, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
agreed and revised accordingly, thanks for the tips Bostonkiwi (talk) 17:50, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Question regarding endowments:

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi ElKevbo: Since you seem to have extensive knowledge around endowments, can you explain to me why managed endowment pools aren't counted as part of a university's endowment? It seems that colleges always seem to include those numbers when talking about their endowments but wikipedia favors IPEDS data which excludes that? Likewise why isn't Duke allowed to include its majority share of the Duke Endowment in its greater endowment numbers? Wozal (talk) 01:20, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Endowments can be really complicated and I think that is part of the reason why you see different editors handling them and writing about them differently. I think that List of colleges and universities in the United States by endowment is the article where this has been addressed most directly with several editors making efforts to limit that list to what is included in NACUBO's annual study/survey; I think the hope there is that the folks who run that study/survey are experts in this topic so we can trust their numbers to be accurate and comparable. Otherwise I don't think there is consensus across articles to include or exclude pools from specific articles. Personally, I don't have a strong opinion on this topic (I know just enough about endowments to know that I don't know very much!) but I would strongly recommend that whenever a particular article does include a pool that should be specifically and clearly noted for readers.
Feel free to ask about this in the Duke Talk page or at WT:UNI; you may get better, more informed opinions and recommendations. ElKevbo (talk) 01:36, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Menlo College article

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi ElKevbo, I saw your edits on the Menlo College page, changing the listing of rankings. I'm curious to know more about what are considered "reputable" rankings systems? Thanks. Jessica.berger.menlo (talk) 20:37, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

In general, there should be solid, independent, and well-informed scholarship that discusses and uses the rankings - they're not solely used by the creator to promote their publication and sale advertising on their website.
There are a ton of "ranking systems" that have been created in the last decade or so that exist solely to attract visitors to a specific website where the creator sells advertising and recruiting leads. Those should never be used as credible sources of information (despite the fact that some naïve or ignorant college and university public relations employees fall for those scams and promote their employers' "ranking" in press releases and news articles). ElKevbo (talk) 02:22, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Boston University Law entering class profile

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hey, Thanks for all you do! I wanted to see where you got the information for Boston University Law’s most recent entering class stats of a median 170 LSAT and 3.81 Gpa. Thanks! Iluvkimchi316 (talk) 17:47, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Sorry but I didn't add that to the article. It's not sourced so I don't know where the information came from. ElKevbo (talk) 20:35, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I agree with you deleting United States after Philadelphia Pennsylvania as there is only one Philadelphia Pennsylvania. That being said, your rhetorical question (implying that there is only one Philadelphia) to person who made that change may irritate the person whose change you reverted as their answer could be "yes" with respect to other places named Philadelphia as there is; (A)"Philadelphia, Mississippi" which, per Wikipedia is ".... is a city in and the county seat of Neshoba County, Mississippi, United States." and (B) Amman Jordan area, per Wikipedia, was named "Philadelphia" in "...the 3rd century BC, [by] Ptolemy II Philadelphus, Pharaoh of Ptolemaic Egypt, ....[and [u]nder Roman rule, Philadelphia was one of the ten Greco-Roman cities of the Decapolis before being directly ruled as part of Arabia Petraea province. was once known as Philadelphia."

You have taught me well over the years and I don't recall ever not agreeing with your changes and this is no exception. However, this is the 1st time I have made any comment and it is to help you understand that someone might be offended by your rhetorical question. OneMoreByte (talk) 02:29, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks for the note! ElKevbo (talk) 04:24, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 June 2022

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:30, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Iona College page

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello ElKevbo,Thank you for your note. I am an employee at Iona College and have been asked to update the Wikipedia page. To clarify, the request is for me to note that on the user template of the Marcomgael account, correct? Thank you! Marcomgael (talk) 18:37, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Baptist Bible College Official Logo.jpg

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Baptist Bible College Official Logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:06, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Billionaires (#of) Referenced in top Colleges-

Latest comment: 2 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

You are much more experienced than me ( well over 5 times the number of edits) and since I recall you having always improved my contributions I reflexively thanked you for change you made earlier today. To date I don't recall me ever not accepting your changes. That being said there may be the 1st time. I believe that until earlier today your deleting reference to number of Billionaires at Penn, I think all 8 of the Ivy League colleges and most similar colleges mention the number of Billionaires. I will double check such. If indeed almost all Ivy League and similar colleges mention #of billionaires, then I am inclined to insert back in Penn's (which has citations to prove). Of course, there may be a Wikipedia reason not to have such reference (of which reason I am not aware). If such is the case, then we should remove the reference to number of Billionaires in all 10 plus colleges that mention it. Thanks again for your help over the years on making me a better Wikipedia editor. OneMoreByte (talk) 10:35, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

I see that I left out a zero in my last comment. You have made over 50 times (NOT 5 times) more edits than me. Thanks for all that you do for the Wikipedia project OneMoreByte (talk) 10:39, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

I just double checked my assertions about reference to #of billionaire and see that I was wrong with respect to one of the Ivy League schools. Though until early today when Penn's reference was removed 7 Ivy League schools Wikipedia page referenced the # of billionaires. The exception is Princeton. In addition, Stanford, University of Chicago and Duke U also reference the # of billionaires. Later today I will reinsert the fact into Penn's page with citations. If you show me (as you always have done in past) that I am wrong, then we should remove the reference to number of Billionaires from not just University of Pennsylvania but also Stanford, University of Chicago and Duke U, Brown, Columbia, Cornell, Dartmouth, Harvard, and Yale. As always, I am willing to be corrected. Thanks again for all your constructive criticism over the past year or so. OneMoreByte (talk) 10:59, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

@OneMoreByte: "Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." I removed that information because the lede is intended to summarize what is in the body of the article and that information isn't in the body of that article. If that is the case for those other articles then they need to be fixed, too. ElKevbo (talk) 15:12, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
@ElKevbo @OneMoreByte I think that the info should be added to the body, not removed from the lead. Information about the prominent alumni that an institution has produced is relevant to an encyclopedic account of that institution, as evidenced by the existence of spinoff "List of X university people" pages for most institutions. There are only two ways to go about presenting that info: by listing individuals or by listing the number of different types of individuals. Listing individuals is almost never due for the lead, particularly for larger universities, so I think "X billionaires, Y presidents, Z Nobel laureates" is far better. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 18:54, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
That's an okay compromise. But I also think it might be time to address these long lists of numbers and awards/categories of alumni in article leads as they're way too long and detailed in some articles. As this particular instance illustrates, in many cases this information in the lead has been lengthened without regard for what's in the body of the article. ElKevbo (talk) 22:02, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Elkevbo I defer to your experience. I will add to the body and shrink the description in head so that it's consistent with rest of Ivy League OneMoreByte (talk) 03:13, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I also thank sdkb for their input OneMoreByte (talk) 03:40, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

NACUBO vs self-published source

Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hi! On the page UCSF you recently inserted a self-published source instead of the NACUBO source (which was the status who before the other user changed it). I reverted it to NACUBO but then you undid this. Not to assume, but was this a mistake? From your other postings, I seemed to believe that you were also in favor of using independent NACUBO source for all rather than self published. If it wasn’t a mistake, I think we need to discuss this more. NACUBO is independent and I think should be given preference. Eccekevin (talk) 20:30, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

There is no consensus for this edit and I'm surprised that you have begun an edit war to enforce your own opinion. In any case, I've opened a discussion at the infobox's Talk page; please participate. ElKevbo (talk) 00:59, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
To be clear, I have simply brought it back to status quo. I actually don’t have a strong opinion either way. And no, I haven’t engaged in an edit war, simply brought back to status quo before the disagreements between several editors and some confusing edits. Eccekevin (talk) 02:18, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
You made an edit, someone else (me, this case) reverted your edit, and you reverted back to your original edit. That is de facto the beginning of an edit war. Please review WP:EW and WP:BRD. ElKevbo (talk) 02:46, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Vanderbilt University, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Northwestern.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 August 2022

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:38, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Nichols College

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Nichols College recently made major and long overdue revisions to its page, most of which have been undone. I understand the edits that refer to "blatantly promotional" and "unnecessarily detailed" but there was no reason to make extensive changes, especially shortening our list of notable alumni. The edits were sanctioned by the college. In addition, there is incorrect information in your version, e.g., Amasa Nichols was never president of Nichols Academy (founder and trustee) and the nickname is Bison, not Bisons (no such word). Please advise on how we may come to a compromise. Thank you. Sdveshi (talk) 16:16, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Apologies on not knowing the guidelines with respect to COI. I would still like to revert to some original edits, with the insertion of a connected contributor disclosure.Thanks Sdveshi (talk) 17:27, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
@Sdveshi: In my experience, many Wikipedia editors are okay with connected editors making edits to articles that are completely uncontroversial and clearly explained e.g., updating information that is already included in the article but has fallen out-of-date, correcting clear errors of fact, fixing typos and mistakes. Edits that are more complex, particularly those that add new information or delete existing information, should be suggested or requested in the article's Talk page. That allows other editors who are not connected to the subject to evaluate the suggestion or request and implement it themselves.
If you make a suggestion or request in the talk page of this college and you don't get a timely response, feel free to ping me. You could also ask for help at WT:UNI. ElKevbo (talk) 23:17, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

ANI mention

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, ElKevbo! I mentioned your name at ANI, in the thread Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Donovanjustin, Salve Regina University. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:24, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. It's a very straight-forward case so I'll lay low unless it's necessary for me to speak up there. ElKevbo (talk) 21:05, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Common University Misspellings

Latest comment: 2 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Hi @ElKevbo,


Hope you're doing well.


Two of the things that surprise me most is how many people confused "entitled" with "titled" and how many universities names can be misspelled ("Emory University", not "Emery University", "Rice University", not "University of Rice", "Washington University in St. Louis", not "University of Washington at St. Louis", "University of Washington", not "Washington University in Seattle, etc.

By chance, do you have a list or know where I could acquire a list of common misspellings/complete list of colleges that may often be confused with each other?

Wozal (talk) 14:57, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Wozal, for misspellings like Emery University, we should be creating redirects to the correct title and tagging them with {{r from misspelling}}. Doing this not only helps users searching, but also helps correct misspellings in articles that link to the institution's page. You can find some instances of some universities that already have this here. To get a more comprehensive list, you'd need to get a query for misspelling redirects to pages categorized as higher education institutions. For individual institutions, you can look at "What links here" in the left sidebar and choose redirects. For institutions that may be confused with each other, you'd want a query for pages categorized as higher education institutions that have the template {{Distinguish}} or similar. This list has a bunch of results. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} talk 17:06, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi @Sdkb,
Thank you!
Would that work within the context of the article? Like if the line was "John graduated from Emery University" or if something was cited at the bottom of the page by "Emery University"? I understand that redirects can be helpful but what about information already in articles? Wozal (talk) 20:15, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
If it's unlinked, then I think you'd need to use the typo tool as suggested by ElKevbo below. But if it's "John graduated from Emery University", then it should be automatically fixed within a few days. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:31, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
I don't have such a list nor do I know of one. For misspellings and errors that are common across institutions/articles, you should be able to find them (one-at-a-time) using Wikipedia's search tool. We have pretty good documentation with examples. You could also ask for help from the Typo Team; they may have other, better ideas and suggestions.
Good luck! ElKevbo (talk) 21:04, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Washington and Lee University edits

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I have made two attempts to revise the Washington and Lee University wiki page, specifically as it relates to President Lee’s tenure at the college. The current article contains a biased point of view that only presents modern perspective. There has been a clear shift in the perspective of Lee, which my edits attempt to capture. Well established historians have differing point of views, reflections that should be captured. Lee came into tenure of a destitute college in need of funding, facilities, curriculum updates, faculty, and students. These facts are indisputable and based on historical fact. Also indisputable are the acts of vandalism and looting that occurred during Hunter’s sack of Lexington. The points of view expressed in my article cite multiple sources and the University’s website. Please consider these sources and explain why they are inadmissible. Based on your accusation and name calling of a divergent perspective seem to go against Wikipedia’s guidelines for diverse and neutral points of view. Please explain how my supported edits are inappropriate? Gwhitfieldvi (talk) 00:09, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

You're welcome to improve the article. Inserting your own point of view and whitewashing history are not improvements. ElKevbo (talk) 00:19, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Drexel Lede Question

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Elkevbo- As always, your knowledge of Wikipedia editing far surpasses my knowledge. I added the info about Drexel university origins since the "lede" already discussed the original name of the institute which became a college and then university as it failed to include the origins of the 2 medical schools it absorbed. The medical school is a world class institution and it's origins deserve to be acknowledged. That being said, I will NOT revert back to my changes as I know you must have good reason to do so. I look forward to learning from you your reasons for deleting the information. Perhaps info should be shorter, in a footnote, and or placed elsewhere in Wikipedia OneMoreByte (talk) 12:57, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

My primary concern was the length and detail of the information. I would be perfectly fine with a brief mention in the lede; I just don't think we need every name and date there. ElKevbo (talk) 21:11, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to answer my question OneMoreByte (talk) 09:13, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 August 2022

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:58, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Board of Trustees election

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thank you for supporting the NPP initiative to improve WMF support of the Page Curation tools. Another way you can help is by voting in the Board of Trustees election. The next Board composition might be giving attention to software development. The election closes on 6 September at 23:59 UTC. View candidate statement videos and Vote Here. MB 03:24, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

University of Puget Sound

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

I noticed that you were actively involved in editing the University of Puget Sound page and had responded in July, 2017 to the request to add its religious affiliation to the United Methodist Church. However, as you may know, November, 2021, "minor revisions" were made that nearly eliminated any reference to their continued connection to the UMC (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=University_of_Puget_Sound&diff=next&oldid=1050653527).

What are your thoughts about reintroducing a reference to that current connection per both https://www.pugetsound.edu/about-puget-sound-0/history-traditions/united-methodist-church-affiliation and https://www.umhef.org/about/schools/listofschools/ ? Jimdmurphy (talk) 23:01, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Here's the Talk Page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:University_of_Puget_Sound — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimdmurphy (talk • contribs) 23:34, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Recent reverted edit and WP:NOTNEWS

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello, I just wanted to ask why my edit was reverted and how it doesn't fit with WP:NOTNEWS? I'd say it fits pretty well with the rest of the section considering BYU's history of homophobia, racism, etc. which is shown to still be talked about with the addition i added. Maybe more information/context should be added but otherwise i'm not really sure why it was reverted 𝙨𝙥𝙞𝙙𝙚𝙧-𝙬𝙞𝙣𝙚-𝙗𝙤𝙩𝙩𝙡𝙚(🕷) - (✉) 15:38, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I believe your addition was fine, and would advocate for its inclusion. A discussion may be best started at Talk:Student life at Brigham Young University so all interested parties can discuss it.--Cerebral726 (talk) 16:03, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Bill Gasarch Books WP:DUE

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello, you reverted a change I made to William Gasarch's Wikipedia page where I mentioned his other book? It seems like just mentioning one of his books puts undue weight on it. Please help me understand, thanks! SebastosOctavian (talk) 20:59, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Reverted edits.

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

This article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeshiva_University says this at the top of the page. This article contains content that is written like an advertisement. Please help improve it by removing promotional content and inappropriate external links, and by adding encyclopedic content written from a neutral point of view. (September 2022) (Learn how and when to remove this template message) I made several edits which I considered to remove exactly this content. The first was sourced from these sources https://www.yu.edu/about (this is clearly from a promotional site). And this source, https://forward.com/news/breaking-news/307235/moshael-straus-elected-yeshiva-u-board-chief/ The second from this https://www.msche.org/institution/0430/ The third from this. https://forward.com/news/333786/yeshiva-u-cedes-control-of-half-its-endowment-to-shed-its-einstein-liabilit/ I can see that the second and third edit do not meet the criteria of promotional material but they really don't seem to make sense on their own. They are very much out of date, and therefore inappropriate. Why woudl the reader be intereseted in thise two out of date snippets? They should surely be replaced by more up to date information. I should have read the sources more carefully but the warning is really not justified as the first edit is certainly in line with the direction above. How about I remove the first which you have restored even though it it clearly promotional material? The second and third should also be removed however that should be because they are just snippets of old information and really tell the reader nothing about the subject. The most recent is 2015. Surely they are not appropriate now? RegardsPngeditor (talk) 17:21, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Please see the new edits, and justifications. I hope these are more correct. RegardsPngeditor (talk) 17:37, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

NationsUniversity

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The article needed more sources, which the CHEA link provided. Also, it is significant that the ECFA accredited the school. Accreditation is their word, not mine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CroyS482 (talk • contribs) 03:21, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

We don't need unnecessary information added to the article even if that information is supported by a source. And we don't want organizations added to the article in the "Accreditation" section that are not accreditors. ElKevbo (talk) 04:28, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 September 2022

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:00, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

As an editor of Ohio University, your input is sought regarding the merge proposal on the History of Ohio University talk page. Thank you --Chevy Jackalope (talk) 21:33, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

for such fix. ) 85.238.101.64 (talk) 01:49, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 October 2022

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:42, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

QS Ranking

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

"QS Subject Ranking 2022 ranked the University of Bath, Exeter, East Anglia, and Liverpool ones of the World's best universities in Linguistics subject. [47]. These universities do not teach Linguistics subject. [48][49][50][51]"

This is a plain fact that is even more involved with QS ranking than the opening paragraph "A perceived need for an international ranking of universities for UK purposes was highlighted in December 2003 in Richard Lambert's review of university-industry collaboration in Britain..."

Why do you think Wiki should exclude this part? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siren.knight (talk • contribs) 07:22, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

It's original research and we don't publish that. Please find a reliable source that has published that information. ElKevbo (talk) 07:35, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 November 2022

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:40, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

The Chicago School of Professional Psychology

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I would appreciate it if in the future that you avoid the sarcasm in the comments. I also don't appreciate you restructuring my comments alone on the talk page when every other comment on the page is in chronological order in the way I had originally posted it. If you have issues with edits I made, and I have left comments on the talk page regarding them, it would be appropriate to start a discussion on that page or at the very least, leave a message on my page. The lawsuit you moved into the history is for only a single campus, is 10 years old and, it is standard practice on almost all wikipedia pages to have separate sections for notable lawsuits at the bottom of the page. Usually, before sections like the notable alumni. The lawsuit is not reflective of the entire institution, or its main campus, so i believe it should have a separate section as I had it before. Also, now the formatting looks like a mess.

If you have issues, I have no problem discussing them on the talk page of the school but, please do not single out my messages on the talk page and not re-order every other comment on the page as well. The reason those comments were at the top was because the page was subjected to subjective editing which was not properly cited, contained inflammatory comments and wasn't written from a neutral point of view. After doing some research, I do agree that listing it as private university is acceptable but there are many private for profit universities as well. It would be certainly appropriate to list them either way since there is no other way to distinguish them. I hope we can continue any further discussion on the talk page of the school where this should have taken place. ScienceAdvisor (talk) 17:26, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Apologies for missing that the other sections weren't in the correct chronological order; I've fixed that now.
It is not "standard practice on almost all wikipedia pages to have separate sections for notable lawsuits at the bottom of the page." In fact, it's specifically discouraged to have "controversy" or similar sections. This is a historical event that clearly belongs in the existing "History" section. You may also find it helpful to review the advice we provide specifically for articles about colleges and universities. ElKevbo (talk) 02:42, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

"don't blindly revert good edits just because an editor has been blocked"

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Actually, ElKevbo, with sock puppetry, that's exactly what we do - we revert every single edit per WP:DENY because they have engaged in sockpuppetry. This has given you a chance to review the edits and ensure they are good. Yes, this editor has made a number of good copyedits, and unfortunately I was forced to revert them all, because they make edits at such a staggering rate that reviewing them all would place an undue burden on us. Thank you for reinstating the good edits.

In addition to engaging in sock puppetry, this person is engaging in actively trolling editors, so it is important per WP:DENY that their edits not be kept. I hope you'll understand. Elizium23 (talk) 16:43, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

DENY isn't mandatory. Some people like it, and some people don't. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:04, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Why delete the country from the lede?

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=State_University_of_New_York_College_at_Cortland&diff=1128416400&oldid=1128413460 2603:7000:2143:8500:7108:C1BB:710F:2E5E (talk) 07:16, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Because (a) there is only one Cortland, New York (and it has an article and it's linked right there in the lede sentence) and (b) we do not have any standard or agreement for requiring country be included in the lede sentence, especially when confusion about the country is unlikely. ElKevbo (talk) 20:58, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
There was a recent discussion about this, which you can read at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 194#Place policy proposal. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:20, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 January 2023

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:45, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Happy New Year, ElKevbo!

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments1 person in discussion
 
 
Happy New Year!

ElKevbo,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
— Moops ⋠T⋡ 04:08, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops ⋠T⋡ 04:08, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Lock Article?

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I'm not sure if there's anything that would stop the anonymous person (who seems to have a new IP everytime) from reverting here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dartmouth_College&action=history I can't find a reason why they keep reverting without specific reasons as there were a number of different things that would need to be addressed. What would you suggest? Wozal (talk) 02:09, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I recommend opening a discussion in the article's Talk page. Without evidence that you've tried to discuss the issue, it's unlikely that an administrator would protect the article from editing by unregistered editors. ElKevbo (talk) 04:12, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Hey

Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments2 people in discussion

I think that Template:Uw-paid1 needs some work, but before making a proposal, I'm trying to find out what causes people to choose this one, instead of a different template. I notice that you posted it at User talk:KenzieSullivan#Paid editing notice. Do you think you could explain why you thought that this person was specifically being paid, rather than having a non-paid COI (e.g., a friend or family member)? I'm hoping that your ideas will help me figure out a shorter, clearer way to approach this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:06, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry but WP:OUTING prevents me from providing specific details. But I'm sure if you do a quick search of that editor's username you'll find similar materials as what I found that led me to suspect a paid editing relationship.
In general, I often use that template when there is a clear link between an editor's username and search results on the website of the specific subject on which they are focused. Many PR and communications folks at colleges and universities, for example, create an account using their name which is easily found in the institution's directory. (That's not the case for this specific editor, by the way.) ElKevbo (talk) 06:38, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
If we don't already have one, it would be helpful to have a variant of this template for editors who have already told us that they have a paid editing relationship but they are editing articles anyway because they don't know about WP:PAID. A more specific but still friendly version that doesn't have the hedging language in this template but gets right to the point. I've had to edit this template to fit that mold several times and some standard, common language would be very helpful. ElKevbo (talk) 06:42, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
I agree. So far, I think we have these cases:
  1. I have solid evidence (e.g., username matches a name on the subject's corporate staff page) that tells me that you're a paid editor, and you need to disclose that connection correctly on wiki.
  2. I suspect you of being paid without any solid evidence (e.g., I can't imagine why anyone would write an article about this subject unless they were being paid; another editor told me that everyone writing about Bollywood actors was paid).
  3. You've disclosed on wiki that you're a paid editor, but you haven't done it the right way.
  4. You've disclosed that you're a paid editor, and your username violates NOSHARE (Template:Uw-coi-username, with options on #3 as well).
  5. 2 needs a lot of hedging, because the accused editor could easily turn out to be someone who isn't paid to edit at all but still has a COI (e.g., friend or family member; an employee who is updating the article on his own time, without knowledge or approval of the subject) or at least a past connection (e.g., met the subject at a public event, ex-employee who quit or retired years ago). I think the first and third could have the same message, as they only need the how-to information.
What other cases can you think of? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:06, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing: Cases 1 and 2 should be covered by one template. We may think that we have solid evidence but we should still assume good faith and keep in mind that we could be wrong so we should still approach those situations with caution e.g., ask questions instead of make accusations. The existing uw-coi template does this fairly well.
Case 3 needs to be framed as "you haven't done it in the way that many editors expect it to be done." The project's Terms of Service don't specify exactly how a disclosure should be made so unless there is a project-wide consensus that requires editors to use a specific template or place specific wording in a particular place we should tell editors that there is one "right way" to make a disclosure.
To the best of my knowledge, case 4 doesn't seem to be addressed by an existing template or options in a current template. But it happens and we need to think about how to warn an editor without overwhelming them.
I cannot think of any additional cases right now. ElKevbo (talk) 02:04, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Thank you for linking to MOS:NUMNOTES in the summary for your recent edit to Emory University. It's a great reminder to other editors to look at the whole paragraph and see that yes, for consistency, we should shorten those numbers (or else spell out eleven and twenty-one, but I'm with you on the digits format).

If you collected barnstars, I'd find an MOS- or edit summary-related one to send your way. —C.Fred (talk) 13:21, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks and you're welcome! I don't have a strong preference for using numerals or letters but I do strongly agree with the MOS that we should be consistent when making comparisons or serial lists. ElKevbo (talk) 13:42, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 January 2023

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:13, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ElKevbo/Archive_28&oldid=1137712152"