User talk:ElKevbo/Archive 29

Archive 25

←

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Recent edit

You mentioned in a recent revision on Holy Cross's page that an edit of mine was "unnecessary in the lede", but why do you consider that so? I can name around 3 schools of similar classifications that have their hidden ivy status and a sentence on their selectivity on the top of their wiki page. Finty67 (talk) 04:16, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

For instance, Lafayette college: Lafayette College Finty67 (talk) 04:20, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't think this merits inclusion in the lede of any article. ElKevbo (talk) 04:42, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, can you explain why you believe it doesn't merit inclusion in the lede of any article? Finty67 (talk) 06:05, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I simply don't think that inclusion in one book is something that readers must immediately know. Nor do readers need to immediately know about undergraduate admissions - this is a general encyclopedia, not an admissions guide for prospective students. ElKevbo (talk) 12:20, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Then you would have to apply this logic universally across the site. I've came across nearly 50 college pages that have "selective","top-ranked", "prestigious", and other phrases mentioned in the lede of the article. It's clear that the vast majority of editors are not in agreement. Finty67 (talk) 19:25, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a massive project with tens of thousands of editors who are volunteers and most of whom are amateurs or non-experts - there are a lot of inconsistencies in our articles. :)

The general question of whether the lede of an article should say something along those lines is a contentious one and I don't think we've ever really reached a consensus. I think that there are some articles where the material and sources in the body of the article make it appropriate and necessary for us to include that in the lede as part of the essential summary of the article. I also think there are some articles where that language cannot be substantiated and it's added by people trying to promote the institution. And then there are many articles that fall between those two extremes where a judgement call is necessary and editors can disagree. What sources are adequate for making that kind of claim in the lede? Do we draw a line - the top 5% of certain reputable rankings? The top 10%? How do we make that judgement?

You're welcome to raise this question - either specifically for this article or more generally across many/all articles - with other editors to get their opinion. WT:UNI would be a good place to start. ElKevbo (talk) 01:02, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Waynesburg University Images

Hi, Could you please explain why you deleted the set image sizes for all the images after my edit on the Waynesburg University article? This is not a reproach or an attempt to argue. I am just wondering because now, the portrait of the school's name giver appears quite huge compared to the images of the buildings which appear now comparatively miniscule :-D. I know, this is rather subjective and a matter of personal taste on aesthetics but still, I would be glad if you could give me a short reply. Thanks. 2A01:8B81:4805:B000:3DF9:8580:FE7A:CC33 (talk) 17:11, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I made the image a little smaller again, as it helps avoid an image sandwich. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:03, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Added an image gallery section to resolve the image size and text interference issues. Also added a new image, a painting of the school's historical school building.2A01:8B81:4805:B000:9553:D2CD:D282:1B9B (talk) 10:02, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

University of Chicago abbreviations

Hi, you reverted an edit on January 15 (the edit removing U of C as an abbreviation for the University of Chicago), commenting "this is not a university-controlled website." Both your undo and your explanation miss my point though. The reason I removed that specific abbreviation is because the source that is quoted for all the abbreviations are the "University of Chicago Identity Guidelines" (FN 9) – and in these guidelines it specifically says that U of C is not used as an abbreviation. So the list of abbreviations either needs a different source, or the list of abbreviations needs to state what the source actually says (and the correct page numbers are indeed 14-15, and not anymore 16-17). How are the abbreviations usually sourced? Are university identity guidelines an acceptable source?

For clarity: I have no affiliation with the University of Chicago and no preference or opinion on their abbreviations. I do have a preference and an opinion on consistency of articles with their sources, and on correct page references in footnotes, though :) Nonformality (talk) 21:31, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks for the explanation! ElKevbo (talk) 23:31, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 February 2023

• From the editor: New for the Signpost: Author pages, tag pages, and a decent article search function

• News and notes: Foundation update on fundraising, new page patrol, Tides, and Wikipedia blocked in Pakistan

• Section 230: Twenty-six words that created the internet, and the future of an encyclopedia

• Disinformation report: Wikipedia on Santos

• Special report: Legal status of Wikimedia projects "unclear" under potential European legislation

• In the media: Furor over new Wikipedia skin, followup on Saudi bans, and legislative debate

• Op-Ed: Estonian businessman and political donor brings lawsuit against head of national Wikimedia chapter

• Opinion: Study examines cultural leanings of Wikimedia projects' visual art coverage

• Recent research: Wikipedia's "moderate yet systematic" liberal citation bias

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Organized Labour

• Tips and tricks: XTools: Data analytics for your list of created articles

• Featured content: 20,000 Featureds under the Sea

• Traffic report: Films, deaths and ChatGPT

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:43, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Addition to William L. Roper

Why did you delete my edit? The information was sourced and the source was provided and clearly listed after the information. 2600:8800:3018:D300:68F8:A518:576B:2937 (talk) 03:43, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

"[Leonard G. Horowitz's death in the air]" is completely insufficient as a citation. Is that the title of a book? The title of an article? An author's name followed by the title of some document? When was it published? And by whom? ...? ElKevbo (talk) 04:02, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 February 2023

• News and notes: Terms of Use update, Steward elections, and Wikipedia back in Pakistan

• In the media: Arbitrators open case after article alleges Wikipedia "intentionally distorts" Holocaust coverage

• Disinformation report: The "largest con in corporate history"?

• Essay: Machine-written articles: a new challenge for Wikipedia

• Tips and tricks: All about writing at DYK

• Featured content: Eden, lost.

• Gallery: Love is in the air

• Traffic report: Superbowl? Pfft. Give me some Bollywood! Yours sincerely, the world

• From the archives: 5, 10, and 15 years ago: Let's (not) delete the Main Page!

• Cobwebs: Editorial: The loss of the moral high ground

• Humour: The RfA Candidate's Song

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:01, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Comparable values

Are you ignoring the “comparable” limitation in the rule that “Comparable values” should all be represented by the same format? (In revert forcing “spanning twelve cities, five states, seven countries”) Thanks 174.194.136.237 (talk) 04:25, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. But feel free to revert me if I've made a mistake. ElKevbo (talk) 12:45, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Advice for Future Editing Events

Hi, I am a librarian at Agnes Scott College and one of the coordinators of last night's event where students made edits to the Agnes Scott College Wikipedia. My colleague Cbish74 and I plan to review and clean up the edits. In the process we hope to identify problems to watch out for in future edit-a-thons. If you have any tips you would like to share, we would love to hear them. We appreciate the comments you have already made. This was our first solo edit-a-thon. It went really well. Students were so enthusiastic they did not want to leave. :) Booksieread (talk) 15:12, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

@Booksieread: That's great to hear! I recommend looking at the resources available at the GLAM–Wiki initiative ("galleries, libraries, archives, and museums" with Wikipedia). They should have some resources for librarians working with patrons to edit articles, including resources from [Wikipedia:GLAM/US|other similar projects in the U.S.]] There may also be some useful resources at the Wikipedia Education Program. ElKevbo (talk) 00:00, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 9 March 2023

• News and notes: What's going on with the Wikimedia Endowment?

• Technology report: Second flight of the Soviet space bears: Testing ChatGPT's accuracy

• In the media: What should Wikipedia do? Publish Russian propaganda? Be less woke? Cover the Holocaust in Poland differently?

• Featured content: In which over two-thirds of the featured articles section needs to be copied over to WikiProject Military History's newsletter

• Recent research: "Wikipedia's Intentional Distortion of the Holocaust" in Poland and "self-focus bias" in coverage of global events

• From the archives: Five, ten, and fifteen years ago

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:41, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

University of Arizona

Hey, thanks for watching out for the wikipage of University of Arizona. But you may be misunderstanding the context around top research-centered universities. AAU & NSF research spending are both highly relevant. It's often the first thing people look into in the academia as a faculty member at R1 institutions (e.g. https://www.econjobrumors.com/topic/predicting-the-next-aau-members). To state research expenditure is ephemeral is the same as stating US News ranking, # of Nobel laureates, and student population are ephemeral. Sure, the status of an organization entity is not persistent but that's the precise reason why we have wikipedia. Wiki is not meant to be a static information page. This aims to concisely inform the readers where the university stands in the research community. It is condescending to assume the readers would know otherwise, especially given the disparity between the more popularly known U.S. News Ranking methodologies & Arizona admission philosophy due to state constitution requirement.

For reference, look at your own institution University of Delaware " According to the National Science Foundation, UD spent $186 million on research and development in 2018, ranking it 119th in the nation.[13][14] It is recognized with the Community Engagement Classification by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.[15]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.24.189.66 (talk) 01:12, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks again for looking after the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.24.189.66 (talk) 01:01, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Vertical bar

I want you to tell me, why did you use vertical bar "|" in the punctuation for the category of Willamette University? 100.2.114.167 (talk) 19:22, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not an expert in categorization but I think that has to with placing that article in the correct category using the correct sort key so that article appears at the top of category listing: "The main article/s of a category, if existent, should get sorted with a space as key so that it/they appear(s) at the very top of the category. Example: [[Category:Example| ]]" ElKevbo (talk) 21:21, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 March 2023

• News and notes: Wikimania submissions deadline looms, Russian government after our lucky charms, AI woes nix CNET from RS slate

• Eyewitness: Three more stories from Ukrainian Wikimedians

• In the media: Paid editing, plagiarism payouts, proponents of a ploy, and people peeved at perceived preferences

• Featured content: Way too many featured articles

• Interview: 228/2/1: the inside scoop on Aoidh's RfA

• Traffic report: Who died? Who won? Who lost?

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:16, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Barber-Scotia College

The article mentions the task force back when it is formed. I didn't think it was appropriate to mention the disbanding in the same paragraph with its formation. So do you still think this was the best way to do it?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:46, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Template:Skip to top and bottom

Seeing this discussion at WT:AN and your since-removed post at VPT, I notice that you are not a fan of the "skip to top and bottom" buttons. Rather than remove them wholesale from the pages in question, there is a way to hide them from your personal view.

Add the following code to your CSS page and you'll never see those buttons again:

#skip-to-top-button, #skip-to-bottom-button {display: none;}

If you have any questions, let me know. (And feel free to leave a comment at that discussion over at the AN talk page). Thank you. SkyWarrior 15:40, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 22:11, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Yale University

I genuinely want to believe that when you said "open a discussion in Talk instead of creating another account solely to revert my edits" in your edit summary of Yale University that you were not addressing me. Surely, you would not accuse someone of the very serious violation of sockpuppetry without any supporting evidence and make a dumb claim that is so easily disproved by a checkuser. Surely, you would not dare to call yourself a Wikipedian while making bold, damaging claims of a living person with no basis, going against one of the most important principles of this community.

Sarcasm aside, I am not happy with this. I demand a sincere apology and suggest that you think twice before accusing and attacking someone with no facts to support your claim. As you must know very well, making such claims in an article about a living person is one easy way to get banned. It's okay to disagree with my edits; it's not okay to false accuse someone of sockpuppetry. I hope you understand my frustration. William2001^{(talk)(Please ping when replying)} 01:44, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Unless you happen to be the editor who has been harassing me on-and-off for the last several weeks then my comment wasn't directed at you. That person has specifically reverted similar edits at other articles using different accounts, including unregistered accounts/IP addresses - just like the "new" editor who only made two edits specifically to revert my edits including the one at Yale University. Apologies if you've gotten caught up in their harassment, too! ElKevbo (talk) 01:54, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for getting back to me, and I'm sorry to hear that you have been harrassed. For the avoidance of doubt, no, that user is not me.

As for the article, I have started a discussion on the talk page, so hopefully other editors can chime in. Hope to talk to you there. William2001^{(talk)(Please ping when replying)} 02:06, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Rankings in lead

Hi there @ElKevbo. Generally, I avoid putting citations in a lead section. Am happy to do so if you feel putting citations to support 'ranked among the top academic institutions in the United States, with highly selective admission' would suit, but I'd generally prefer to have that in the main body. Let me know your thoughts. SerAntoniDeMiloni (talk) 14:35, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the note! The topic of "prestige" in the lede of articles about colleges and universities has long been problematic with some editors inserting their own interpretations and opinions, sometimes in good-faith and sometimes to promote a particular institution. There was an RfC that tried to determine consensus about how to deal with this. This discussion found "there is consensus that, to include text on "reputation, prestige, or relative ranking(s)" in a lead section, such material must be compliant with generally applicable policies, including:

• maintaining appropriate relative emphasis in lead sections (one editor noted that "only if a reputation is exceptionally good or bad or disputed is it such an important fact as to be noted in the lead section of an article," and no editor has contradicted this view);
• following the general principles applicable to describing reputations;
• ensuring that the lead appropriately reflects, and is supported by, the body of the article;
• being directly supported by high-quality sources (WP:V, WP:RS, WP:SYNTH); and
• adhering to a neutral point of view, including:
  • by avoiding boosterism and puffery (which can come in the form of undue weight).
  • by using a descriptive, encyclopedic (rather than promotional) tone.

[and] if few sources on reputation, prestige, or rankings exist, or if such sources are not of high quality, that is a signal that the high threshold for inclusion in a lead section is not met." So we've moved toward requiring sources that explicitly support this kind of information in the lede of articles. ElKevbo (talk) 23:22, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Then move it to the body, don't just revert it

Would that have been so hard? Moreover, on what plausible basis is it wrong for the Infobox? The way I did it makes for an easy edit come July, just delete the entry and ref for interim pres. Banks Irk (talk) 20:54, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Don't be absurd. Banks Irk (talk) 23:12, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Johns Hopkins University

Hi @ElKevbo,

After reading through the disputed material at JHU, I've requested semi-protection on the page and received semi-protection for 2 weeks. However, since you are the original author of deleting the disputed content, I wasn't sure how to restore without getting rid of the page protection and didn't want to get rid of your attributions. Wozal (talk) 18:04, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Editing the article won't change the page protection - that's a completely different process to which only administrators have access. ElKevbo (talk) 02:13, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Medaille University

I had posted the info about their layoffs. Do you have any reason to doubt the significance of their WARN filing? Thanks

wiki-ny-2007 (talk) 03:35, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Medaille University... Adding this second comment as it seems this does some sort of notification. Thanks wiki-ny-2007 (talk) 03:37, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

There is an open discussion on this in the article's Talk page. ElKevbo (talk) 11:28, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Here's some more info:

https://www.wkbw.com/news/local-news/medaille-university-set-to-integrate-with-trocaire-college-august-2023

wiki-ny-2007 (talk) 16:33, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

UCLA

Hey Elkevbo, I think it would be better if we create a separate section of scandals in the UCLA wiki page, other universities have similar types of sections named 'Scandals' or 'Controversies'. What do you think? Ragnarvrollo (talk) 12:46, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I meant instead of putting the scandals in the 'History' section, it would be better to create a separate section like Scandals/Controversies. I hope you’ll give your opinion about it. Ragnarvrollo (talk) 15:45, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate you dropping me a note but I disagree. In general, many Wikipedia editors do not believe that "controversy" sections in articles are appropriate. Our advice for college and university articles recommends that we "place controversies and other events into their proper historical context." That advice also recommends that this kind of information be placed into the "History" section. It's just usually bad practice to divorce controversies from broader context that readers needs to understand them. ElKevbo (talk) 21:25, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 8 May 2023

• News and notes: New legal "deVLOPments" in the EU

• In the media: Vivek's smelly socks, online safety, and politics

• Recent research: Gender, race and notability in deletion discussions

• Featured content: I wrote a poem for each article, I found rhymes for all the lists; My first featured picture of this year now finally exists!

• Arbitration report: "World War II and the history of Jews in Poland" approaches conclusion

• News from the WMF: Planning together with the Wikimedia Foundation

• Special report: There Shall Be Seasons Refreshing – Stories from WikiConference India 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:24, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 May 2023

• News and notes: Golden parachutes: Record severance payments at Wikimedia Foundation

• In the media: History, propaganda and censorship

• Arbitration report: Final decision in "World War II and the history of Jews in Poland"

• Recent research: Create or curate, cooperate or compete? Game theory for Wikipedia editors

• Featured content: A very musical week for featured articles

• Traffic report: Coronation, chatbot, celebs

• WikiProject report: Wikipedians Convene for Queering Wikipedia 2023: The First International LGBT+ Wikipedia Conference

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:38, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Promotional/inadequately sourced reputation descriptions in ledes

Hi ElKevbo! It seems that promotional/inadequately sourced reputation descriptions in ledes has continued to be a hot topic lately. Thanks as always for your diligence in spotting and addressing those. I've been thinking about ways we might try to diffuse the conflicts that arise from that issue better. To some extent, I think they're inevitable/the result of other editors not properly adhering to rules/norms. But I also see a somewhat regular pattern that happens. We will remove (or revert) a description in the lede, saying (justifiably) that it doesn't abide by WP:HIGHEREDREP, and this then causes a defensive reaction among the other editor, who thinks it should be there and restores it with a source to a ranking or something else inadequate. We then remove it, and a debate ensues on the talk page about why the source is inadequate that takes up a bunch of time and results in a lot of ill-will. I think a big part of the issue here is that editors have the (correct, in my view) instinct that there ought to be something about reputation present, but they don't have the skill to find the sourcing to justify it, so this leads them to dig in their heels on the best they can come up with.

There are two ways I can think of we might be able to break that pattern. The first would be to write up some guidance about how to find actual high-quality sources on university reputations, which we could then point to when these situations come up. Editors who are sufficiently competent would then be able to use that to come up with an improved description.

The second would be to, rather than removing/reverting descriptions, draft ones we'd like to see and offer them as alternatives. I think that might be less likely to provoke a defensive response, as it comes across as a compromise and satisfies their instinct that there ought to be something. Granted, it's a lot more work on the front end, which is never something that can be expected/required, but if it avoids extended talk page debates, I think it often ends up saving effort in the long run.

Do either or both of those seem like viable strategies to you? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:52, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Let me continue ruminating on this - these are good ideas. ElKevbo (talk) 21:02, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. (Posted on behalf of the IP, see [1]) AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:22, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

May 2023

@ElKevbo Could you remove the edit war tag you left on my talk page? As I mentioned on the HC talk page, nothing constituted an editor war. Respectfully, I think you were a little overzealous in adding it. GuardianH (talk) 06:02, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Reverting another editor's edit of your own material is a de facto edit war. But it's your Talk page and you are welcome to remove anything from it you'd like to remove. ElKevbo (talk) 14:18, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

I replied at GuardianH's talk page. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:25, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 5 June 2023

• News and notes: WMRU director forks new 'pedia, birds flap in top '22 piccy, WMF weighs in on Indian gov's map axe plea

• In the media: Section 230 stands tall, WP vs. UK bill, Miss Information dissed again

• Featured content: Poetry under pressure

• Traffic report: Celebs, controversies and a chatbot in the public eye

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:21, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Baylor College of Medicine founding dean

Good afternoon. I'm responding to this edit reversion from November of 2022.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baylor_College_of_Medicine&oldid=1120985650

The founding dean of the precursor to Baylor College of Medicine (the University of Dallas Medical Department) was Dr. Titterington (at that time it was known as the University of Dallas Medical Department). Dr. Stout was listed as chair of the board of managers of the department. The school later became the Baylor University College of Medicine, and in 1969, the current Baylor College of Medicine. Dr. DeBakey was the first president.

The third paragraph under history should be removed, or at minimum remove that Dr. Stout was founding dean, which is inaccurate. The photo also should be replaced with the first dean in 1900 or first BCM dean in 1969. At this point, it can just be removed.

We have sources for all of this information which could be sent as proof.

Book 1 – Arming for Battle Against Disease by William T. Butler, M.D. Dr. Stout bio, archives at Baylor College of Medicine 99.179.173.93 (talk) 18:51, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

First, who is "we?" Please note that Wikipedia has policies regarding editing by those who are being paid by the subject and those who have other kinds of conflicts of interest. The project also doesn't allow accounts that are controlled by multiple people.

Second, is that source one that has been published? Or is it a primary source that is unpublished? ElKevbo (talk) 23:17, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

The "we" is the Archives and Office of Communications at Baylor. We understand that we're not supposed to do editing in this way, but there's a clear factual inaccuracy that has been placed on this page and there's a vested interest in the record being corrected. The Archives at Baylor College of Medicine has multiple sets of documents showing these facts, and this information is detailed in the book written by Dr. William T. Butler, who spent his later years compiling a history of Baylor into a series of books. https://secure.givebcm.org/site/Ecommerce;jsessionid=00000000.app20121b?store_id=1361&NONCE_TOKEN=4D17E882747A1B4C489EBD1BCE508209 128.249.96.19 (talk) 21:43, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

@ElKevbo Per IP's own disclosure, I've noted the connection via Template:Connected contributor on the article's talk page here. GuardianH (talk) 21:39, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 June 2023

• News and notes: WMF Terms of Use now in force, new Creative Commons licensing

• In the media: English WP editor glocked after BLP row on Italian 'pedia

• Featured content: Content, featured

• Recent research: Hoaxers prefer currently-popular topics

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:08, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

The term "Roman Catholic

Hi, just a quick note about the term Roman Catholic (term). It is quite a loaded term, as reading the page will show. It is of Protestant origin and not the preferred way the Catholic Church refers to itself. That's why neither Catholic Church nor List of Catholic universities and colleges in the United States use it. I wanted to raise this with you since you are a usual editor in the project, and hear your opinion. in my opinion, the easiest thing would be to link the Church body in the religious_affliliation parameters, like it is done for all other institutions (for example, BYU has The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and not Mormon in its affiliation. All other religious institutions, such as the aforementioned BUY, or SMU (links to United Methodist Church, California Lutheran University (links to Evangelical Lutheran Church in America), Liberty University (links to Southern Baptist Conservatives of Virginia), etc... use the parameter to specify the denomination or church they are affiliated with. I see no reason Catholic universities should be treated differently. Eccekevin (talk) 21:53, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

In my experience, we're not all at all consistent in what is placed in this parameter of the university infobox. More specifically, we seem to be inconsistent as to whether we use a noun or an adjective. Further discussion and a concrete proposal for the documentation of the infobox and the examples provided there would be most welcome! ElKevbo (talk) 22:23, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Makes sense. But other than this case of this adjective, I have not seen any other instance, have you? They seem to all be just the official name of the church or denomination. Incidentally, that would be my proposal, pretty straightforward (although happy to spell it out more formally and maybe post it on the project page). Eccekevin (talk) 22:32, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I do think there is a disconnect between using an adjective (e.g., "Catholic") but linking to a noun (e.g., "Catholic Church"). I don't immediately recall any specific examples of articles that use a noun or link to an adjective but I'm sure that a failure of my memory and not because there aren't several examples. I don't have a strong opinion on which approach is best except for (a) a persistent annoyance about the mismatch between the adjective/noun pairing and (b) the lack of common adjectives for some religions or specific sects (I recall having to do some unsatisfactory circumlocutions to work around this in the lede sentence of a few articles). Consistency of any kind would be very welcome.

I do think that there needs to specific consideration of institutions with a religious character but not a formal relationship with a specific, formalized organization. For example, there are Jewish institutions like Touro University and Yeshiva University that don't appear to be linked to a specific synagogue or other formalized Jewish group and and Buddhist institutions like Dharma Realm Buddhist University and Soka University of America that are in a similar position. We should provide guidance that accounts for those institutions, too. Hillsdale College also provides a good example of some complexity in this area.

There are other situations that we have often handled poorly e.g., institutions that were previously associated with a religion but have since become secular, institutions that maintain an association with a religion but in some situations downplay or disavow that association (presumably to make the institutions more attractive to students who don't share that religion). But I don't think we need to immediately deal with these situations - we can begin with institutions that clearly and consistently proclaim a well-documented and overt religious character or formal association. ElKevbo (talk) 23:07, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Just found a few examples of institutions that use nouns in this parameter and not adjectives: St. Augustine's University (North Carolina)‎ and Kenyon College‎ which both use Episcopal Church. These are from your own recent editing history which I hope illustrates how common these inconsistencies are and how easy it is to be inconsistent even with the best of intentions! :)

Yes, I saw similar examples, especially with generic non-denominational Christian universities (like Hillsdale or Liberty or the many nondenominational ones) and some non-Christian religions where the institution is associated with a movement. In that case, I think the page linked in the parameter should be that which most closely links with what the sources say. This will be a noun almost always (Evangelicalism, Conservative Judaism, Nondenominational Christianity).

For cases in which there is a specific church, instead, then once again I think linking the page of the church itself makes sense, without an adjective redirect (Southern Baptist Convention, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, etc). This is for example what I did, as you noticed, with those two colleges linked with the Episcopal Church. The link already was to that page, but it was a redirect as Episcopalianism. I see no reason to have adjective-redirects rather than the page of the religious institution itself. It's confusing, and using redirects

So, in both cases, whether it is a specific religious body or a general movement or idea, I say we use the noun that matches the Wikipage title, rather than having inconsistent and sometimes controversial/inaccurate adjectives (like Mormon or Roman Catholic or Episcopalianism). This is also an example of MOS:NOPIPE, MOS:SPECIFICLINK, and MOS:EGG.

Finally, in the tricky case of those institutions with past affiliations and tenuous connections, I agree it's quite tricky, but also I think that's a different argument with no bearing here. Whather of not the link should be there, it should be a noun or the title of the Wikipage rather than a adjective-redirect.Eccekevin (talk) 00:47, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

The first sentence of Catholic Church has Roman Catholic in it — AW (talk) 02:26, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

But it is called Catholic Church, not Roman Catholic Church, on Wikipedia for a reason. And the lede explains that 'Roman' is not a term used by the church itself, see Roman Catholic (term). It's similar to the term Mormon. Eccekevin (talk) 02:48, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello from UAS

Hi ElKevbo, Is it against WP policy to add credentials to our chancellor's name? She asked me to make the change so I want to make sure I explain it to her correctly. Or, if there is another way to do it, I would appreciate any advice you have. Also - do you know how to change the logo that is showing there? That is an outdated logo.

Respectfully,

Keni Campbell Public Information Officer Executive Assistant to the Chancellor Klcampbell4 (talk) 23:03, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Keni. First, you probably want to review our policies about paid editing and conflicts of interest.

We generally don't include titles and credentials in Wikipedia articles, including "Dr." and "PhD." I understand that it might be disappointing but it's our house style. (It may not be consistently applied but that's probably because of the nature of Wikipedia - an encyclopedia edited by a massive group of editors, mostly spirited amateurs - is bound to have some inconsistencies!)

For the logo, someone will need to upload the new image to Wikipedia before it can be added to the article. If you can point me in to the image or send it to me, I'd be happy to help. If you want to upload it yourself, please be careful that you upload it here and not to the Wikimedia Commons; Commons only allows copyright-free images and this image is surely copyrighted by your employer (but we can use it here under fair use). ElKevbo (talk) 23:35, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 3 July 2023

• News and notes: Online Safety Bill: Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia UK launch open letter

• Disinformation report: Imploded submersible outfit foiled trying to sing own praises on Wikipedia

• In the media: Journo proposes mass Wiki dox, sponsored articles on Fandom, Section 230 discussed

• Featured content: Incensed

• Traffic report: Are you afraid of spiders? Arnold? The Idol? ChatGPT?

• Humour: United Nations dispatches peacekeeping force to Wikipedia policy discussions

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:13, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 July 2023

• News and notes: Big bux hidden beneath wine-dark sea as we wait for the Tides to go out?

• In the media: Tentacles of Emirates plot attempt to ensnare Wikipedia

• Obituary: David Thomsen (Dthomsen8) and Ingo Koll (Kipala)

• News from the WMF: ABC for Fundraising: Advancing Banner Collaboration for fundraising campaigns

• In focus: Are the children of celebrities over-represented in French cinema?

• Tips and tricks: What automation can do for you (and your WikiProject)

• Recent research: Wikipedia-grounded chatbot "outperforms all baselines" on factual accuracy

• Humour: New fringe theories to be introduced

• Cobwebs: If you're reading this, you're probably on a desktop

• Featured content: Scrollin', scrollin', scrollin', keep those readers scrollin', got to keep on scrollin', Rawhide!

• Traffic report: The Idol becomes the Master

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:00, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

wp:overlink

Hello. I was wondering if you've read wp:overlink, given that you link to New York City. Perhaps it was an inadvertent error? Thanks. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:BCDE:F604:F132:DB31 (talk) 22:48, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of WP:OL and that wasn't an error - I don't think that linking in the lede sentence and infobox to the city where the subject of an article is located is overlinking. ElKevbo (talk) 22:58, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to an essay - those are worth little, and not necessarily even worth reading .. they may be the view of simply one editor. I was referring to wp:overlink. The WP guideline (generally accepted WP standard) that is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Which says: "What generally should not be linked .... the following are usually not linked: ... New York City." Given that, I'm surprised you would revert an editor, to impose linking. And do so without an explanatory edit summary. If your rationale relates to an essay rather than the guideline (I haven't read it .. they tend to be of little value .. and are do not take precedent over WP guidelines), I would urge you to revert. --2603:7000:2101:AA00:BCDE:F604:F132:DB31 (talk) 23:03, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry - I meant to link to MOS:OL. You're welcome to open a discussion in the article's Talk page if you disagree! ElKevbo (talk) 23:09, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Talk pages at such articles attract little attention. You're an excellent, seasoned, rules-abiding editor. I would think you would simply self-revert. There's no gray area here. It's exactly the example the WP guideline refers to. I'm not sure why there would be any doubt about this in your mind, or why you would extend the discourse needlessly, to simply seek to edit contrary what the guidelines lays out clearly. --2603:7000:2101:AA00:9DA4:3A91:17A6:6F92 (talk) 05:30, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Given the input at the guideline page, might you consider self-reverting? I don't wish to have areas of conflict any time we both edit such articles. Thanks. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:C5EE:EC1C:6250:8821 (talk) 06:29, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

No. But if you want to spend your free time removing useful links, I won't stop you. ElKevbo (talk) 12:08, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

RIT

please be careful about your deletion. for example you delete some important information in the introduction which are vital to researchers and students. for instance, having contribution with big companies is very key factor for selecting RIT to apply and study, but you ironically delete it. in addition, it is obvious that RIT is belong to group of institutes of technology in the United States. But, you simply delete this clear information. Are you kidding? David Woodev (talk) 21:12, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

You're edit warring to delete large amounts of material from the article. Revert your previous edit and explain what you're trying to do in the article's Talk page. ElKevbo (talk) 21:13, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 August 2023

• News and notes: City officials attempt to doxx Wikipedians, Ruwiki founder banned, WMF launches Mastodon server

• In the media: Truth, AI, bull from politicians, and climate change

• Disinformation report: Hot climate, hot hit, hot money, hot news hot off the presses!

• Obituary: Donald Cram, Peter McCawley, and Eagleash

• Tips and tricks: Citation tools for dummies!

• Humour: Does Wikipedia present neutral perspectives?

• In focus: Journals cited by Wikipedia

• Opinion: Are global bans the last step?

• Featured content: Featured Content, 1 to 15 July

• Traffic report: Come on Oppie, let's go party

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:37, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

College Factual

@ElKevbo, I am interested in the deletion of College Factual as "not a reputable ranking system." I am wondering if there is a Wikipedia rule that I should learn. Just in a quick Googling, I find College Factual getting a nod from The New York Times in an article, being the subject of a USA Today story in 2017, etc. College Factual has multiple employes, which I am guessing elevates it past the "self-published" category in Wikipedia's guidelines. GLB (talk) 22:19, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't know if there has been a specific discussion of this source. I don't see anything in the places where I would expect to see it e.g., WT:UNI, Talk:College and university rankings, Talk:College and university rankings in the United States. I'd welcome such a discussion if you want to open one somewhere - I think WT:UNI might be the best place. ElKevbo (talk) 22:39, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Those are good leads. I will need to read and learn more about everything before having a chance of doing a good job starting a discussion, but I hope to do that reading in time. Feel free to start the conversation before me if you are so inclined. GLB (talk) 21:53, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 August 2023

• News and notes: Dude, Where's My Donations? Wikimedia Foundation announces another million in grants for non-Wikimedia-related projects

• In the media: An accusation of bias from Brazil, a lawsuit from Portugal, plagiarism from Florida

• In focus: 2023 Good Article Nomination drive is underway: get your barnstars here!

• Special report: Thirteen years later, why are most administrators still from 2005?

• Tips and tricks: How to find images for your articles, check their copyright, upload them, and restore them

• Cobwebs: Getting serious about writing

• Opinion: Copyright trolls, or the last beautiful free souls on this planet?

• Serendipity: Why I stopped taking photographs almost altogether

• Featured content: Barbenheimer confirmed

• Humour: Arbitration Committee to accept case against Right Honorable Frimbley Cantingham, 15th Viscount Bellington-upon-Porkshire

• Traffic report: 'Cause today it just goes with the fashion

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:16, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

UCLA

The mention of UCLA's reputation in the lead section is appropriate pursuant to WP:HIGHEREDREP, which states that "only if a reputation is exceptionally good or bad or disputed is it such an important fact as to be noted in the lead section of an article." UC Berkeley's page mentions its ranking in the lead section, and as UCLA is tied with UC Berkeley as the number one public institution in the US, it therefore has an "exceptionally good" reputation worth noting in the lead section. This is supported by the US News and Times Higher Education rankings provided. Geogrk (talk) 01:31, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Please open a discussion in the article's Talk page where it will be easier for other editors to find it there and participate. And please take a careful look at the kind of sources that are cited in the Berkeley article - they're not ephemeral rankings from one year and one ranking organization. ElKevbo (talk) 01:33, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

@Geogrk See WP:SYNTH. What is necessary are sources that explicitly support such an attribution, as opposed to a list. GuardianH (talk) 20:47, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Art school

Hi ElKevbo! You deleted an external link on this page with the comment "why are we linking to this organization and no others?" I added it when I revamped the section on Australian art schools as ACUADS is the peak body for Australian art schools and felt it was a relevant link. As to why no others are listed, I can't speak to that as I haven't edited other sections of this page. I wold like to see the link retained as there isn't a separate page on ACUADS but, I don't feel strongly enough about it to insist it's retained. I'm really just answering your question. Cheers! Uberlibris (talk) 23:33, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the message! Since the article covers a global phenomenon, I don't think it's appropriate to only add an external link to that article if it's to an art school organization for just one country. I don't think it would be too hard to find similar organizations for other regions (although I don't know when adding those links would just cross into WP:NOTDIR territory). ElKevbo (talk) 23:51, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Invisible Barnstar
		@ElKevbo, your work towards cleaning up WP:BOOSTERISM and generally improving university and higher education articles towards the aim of the encyclopedia has not gone unnoticed. In the endless quandaries, opening of talk page discussions, and egregious personal attacks, you've chewed through it all and have been both persistent and diligent through the juggernaut. I saw some of the recent WP:CANVASSING against you on the Berkeley page, and I hope none of that sensational nonsense gets to you. This is the first barnstar I've ever given out, and I can't think of many editors more deserving of one! GuardianH (talk) 04:01, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 12:44, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

This is quite the award! Jjazz76 (talk) 03:10, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

RfC: Should relevant notability guidelines...

I've been reading the discussion at RfC: Should relevant notability guidelines be edited to clarify that notability can be used as a criterion for inclusion in embedded lists? and it's all over the place, but this is something I have struggled with many times, and hoped the policy could be improved. Particularly with additions to city "notable people" lists and also alumni lists on high schools, it frequently ends in a time-taking discussion before consensus--always--says to the editor that the person you're trying to add needs a Wikipedia article, so stop adding them or write their article. Not sure how to approach this RfC. Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 20:10, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

California Western School of Law

Hi ElKevbo! You deleted the following contribution due to "Due and undue weight": "In 2008, California Western ranked first among the three ABA-approved law schools in the San Diego metropolitan area for both the February and July California bar examinations. Seventy-seven percent of California Western graduates taking the February 2008 California Bar Examination for the first time passed, placing the law school second among the 20 ABA-approved law schools in California. Eighty-five percent of California Western graduates taking the bar exam for the first time in July 2008 passed, placing the law school eighth in the state." This was a record-setting accomplishment for the law school, which merited publication on its website (since taken down). It provides historical bar passage data and context that may be very important to various stakeholders (e.g., alumni, donors, and prospective students). Printoned (talk) 03:26, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I disagree - this looks like a relatively minor historical item from 15 years ago. If it's truly noteworthy, you should be able to find independent, secondary sources. In any case, you're welcome to open discussion in the article's Talk page to see what other editors think. ElKevbo (talk) 10:54, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

This bar passage information is directly related to California Western's commitment "to complying with all disclosure requirements of the American Bar Association, the Western Association of Schools and Colleges, and the U.S. Department of Education." Please see https://www.cwsl.edu/about/required_disclosures/consumer_information_aba_required_disclosures/bar_pass_rate.html, where the February 2008 and July 2008 California Bar Examination first-time taker pass rates and relative performance statistics are listed, along with more recent years. Therefore, apparently the American Bar Association would disagree that "this looks like a relatively minor historical item from 15 years ago." Printoned (talk) 13:35, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I remain unconvinced that these cherry-picked facts from fifteen years ago remain relevant. I recommend you open a discussion in the article's Talk page to see if other editors have different opinions. ElKevbo (talk) 21:12, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

To make these facts more relevant, I have added the sentence, "Since 2008, the law school's California bar examination first-time-taker passage rates have generally trended downward." I see your point and appreciate the time you have taken to guide me in presenting a more balanced perspective. I trust this addition addresses your concern regarding relevance. Printoned (talk) 22:54, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Discussion invitation

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Washington and Lee University § Claim that Lee tolerated rape is objectively false and relies on historically illiterate single sourcing. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:15, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 August 2023

• From the editor: Beta version of signpost.news now online

• News and notes: You like RecentChanges?

• In the media: Taking it sleazy

• Recent research: The five barriers that impede "stitching" collaboration between Commons and Wikipedia

• Draftspace: Bad Jokes and Other Draftspace Novelties

• Humour: The Dehumourification Plan

• Traffic report: Raise your drinking glass, here's to yesterday

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:42, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Union University (New York)

Hi ElKevbo - I see your name a lot coming up in history of education articles. (Great work BTW!) Anyway, I have stumbled a few times across this page: Union University (New York)

I continue to wonder - does this actually really exist? Can find scant evidence of its continued existence in the news/webpages of the constituent organizations. If you ever have time would be interested to hear what you find. Jjazz76 (talk) 17:58, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Take a look at this book and see if it's the same institution. ElKevbo (talk) 18:15, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 September 2023

• News and notes: Wikimedia power sharing – just an advisory role for the volunteer community?

• In the media: "Just flirting", going Dutch and Shapps for the defence?

• Obituary: Nosebagbear

• Serendipity: Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no paywall, for thou, Wikipedia Library, art with me

• Featured content: Catching up

• Concept: Strange portal opened by CERN researchers brings Wikipedia articles from "other worlds"

• Traffic report: Some of it's magic, some of it's tragic

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:36, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Third opinion requested

I have asked for a third opinion regarding List of PennWest Edinboro alumni and other articles. Rublamb (talk) 18:42, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 3 October 2023

• News and notes: Wikimedia Endowment financial statement published

• In the media: History is written by whoever can harness the most editors

• Recent research: Readers prefer ChatGPT over Wikipedia; concerns about limiting "anyone can edit" principle "may be overstated"

• Featured content: By your logic,

• Concept: Wikipedia policies from other worlds: WP:NOANTLERS

• Poetry: "The Sight"

• Traffic report: There shall be no slaves in the land of lands, it's a Bollywood jam

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:29, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Hult International Business School - first triple accredited in US

Hi, I can see that you reverted my edit, can you let me know why please? I thought it's a legit thing to say. Thanks! Ovidiusuciuhult (talk) 15:55, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I simply don't think it's noteworthy. Accreditation is not a prize or a ranking. And "triple accreditation" is pure marketing drivel.

Of course, you're welcome to open a discussion in the article's Talk page to see if other editors have different opinions! ElKevbo (talk) 22:12, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

MIT article

The sentence you remove is a powerful sentence that sets a tone for the article. It is an evocative sentence to read for anyone interested in, affiliated with, or an alumnus of this institution. It deserves a place in this article. Please do not remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.136.58.186 (talk) 02:29, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Please review our current consensus on statements like that. ElKevbo (talk) 02:36, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 October 2023

• News and notes: Where have all the administrators gone?

• In the media: Thirst traps, the fastest loading sites on the web, and the original collaborative writing

• Gallery: Before and After: Why you don't need to know how to restore images to make massive improvements

• Featured content: Yo, ho! Blow the man down!

• Traffic report: The calm and the storm

• News from Diff: Sawtpedia: Giving a Voice to Wikipedia Using QR Codes

• Humour: New citation template introduced for divine revelations, drug use, and really thinking about it

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:00, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 November 2023

• Arbitration report: Admin bewilderingly unmasks self as sockpuppet of other admin who was extremely banned in 2015

• In the media: UK shadow chancellor accused of ripping off WP articles for book, Wikipedians accused of being dicks by a rich man

• News and notes: Board candidacy process posted, editors protest WMF privacy measure, sweet meetups

• Opinion: An open letter to Elon Musk

• WikiCup report: The WikiCup 2023

• News from Wiki Ed: Equity lists on Wikipedia

• Recent research: How English Wikipedia drove out fringe editors over two decades

• Featured content: Like putting a golf course in a historic site.

• Wikidata: Evaluating qualitative systemic bias in large article sets on Wikipedia

• Traffic report: Cricket jumpscare

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:43, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

American College of Greece

Hello. May I ask why you removed almost all data for the college and now the article is 2 sentences only? Marinosk (talk) 14:38, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Gnkgr initially made that edit. I simply reverted your own edit to your employer's article.

Please don't edit your employer's article. You're welcome to make suggestions and requests in the article's Talk page. ElKevbo (talk) 14:56, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I am sorry but ALL information has been removed. Please do tell me what is the appropriate way of adding the information. Marinosk (talk) 15:00, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

You're welcome to make suggestions and requests in the article's Talk page. You might also find it helpful to work in your own sandbox that you can access using the "Sandbox" link at the very top of the page, next to your username; that might help you test edits and help other editors see what you are specifically requesting be added or changed in the article. ElKevbo (talk) 16:26, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for getting back. I have made some proposals on the talk page. Who gets to approve them? Marinosk (talk) 17:59, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Other Wikipedia editors who don't have a conflict of interest with respect to that particular article. ElKevbo (talk) 14:27, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

OK - this makes sense. However, I would like to draw your attention to this: The page, as was uploaded, was revised because (as the editor noted) -> Turning the article into a stub as nearly all the sources where self-authored or PR releases.

The way the page was written was entirely based on how other US Colleges & Universities present themselves. Indicativelly I will mention https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babson_College, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Notre_Dame, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northeastern_University, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_College, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PennWest_Clarion, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockton_University, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rider_University, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_North_Florida, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Utah

In those pages (and most probably many more) a lot of things are being referenced to each institution's page. Why in those cases this is acceptable and in our case it is not? Marinosk (talk) 20:18, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

WT:UNI may be a good place to start if you'd like to ask other editors to possible weigh in with different opinion.

You may also want to move your proposed new text for the article into your sandbox - it can be really messy to try to put a lot of draft text in a Talk page, especially if you also want to include templates and images. ElKevbo (talk) 22:24, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your proposals. The article has been moved to sandbox. I will go to the WT:UNI you indicated. Marinosk (talk) 08:47, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Confucius Institute

Created a new account just so I could thank you for your restoration of an earlier version of Confucius Institute. I'm glad that you judged the edit on its merits rather than automatically striking it out due to the contributor being a sock.

If you are interested in more such examples, see Censorship of Wikipedia[2] and Chinese Wikipedia [3]. On these articles, if you believe the contributions from the now-banned editor to be flawed and proceed to make modifications, that is okay since Wikipedia encourages discussion and alternative viewpoints. However, two pro-Beijing editors User:Qiushufang and User:LilAhok have kept using the sock excuse to revert. Unfortunately, these reversions also get rid of a lot of supporting sources from Western media such as BBC and Slate which are not surprisingly critical of China, so the net result is that entire controversial segments have been wiped from the article. On the extreme, I wonder if this behavior is bordering on censorship, perhaps at the bequest of the Chinese Communist Party.

As for me, I'll just stay clear of editing articles for the near future. At least I'm glad to have been heard, so thanks for listening. ThePersecutedEd (talk) 14:37, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Fellowship = alumni ?

I am working on a list of Harvard Medical School alumni. Do you know if post-graduate research positions or fellowships make people an alumni of the institution. Many individuals with this relationship to Harvard have the "Harvard Medical School alumni category". I am reluctant to include these individuals on Harvard Medical School alumni list as this is the first time I have come across this issue. Would the "Harvard Medical School people" category be a better fit? Rublamb (talk) 17:44, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with you - post-docs and fellows are not students therefore they're not alumni but they are staff so the broader "people" category would work. ElKevbo (talk) 22:33, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 November 2023

• In the media: Propaganda and photos, lunatics and a lunar backup

• News and notes: Update on Wikimedia's financial health

• Traffic report: If it bleeds, it leads

• Recent research: Canceling disputes as the real function of ArbCom

• Wikimania: Wikimania 2024 scholarships

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:43, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on Christian Brothers University

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Christian Brothers University, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 20:58, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Reverts

Thanks for this. Have you taken a look at other recent related reverts by that user? I guess there probably aren't many people watching those pages, so such reverts go unnoticed. 85.235.133.59 (talk) 00:02, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi ElKevbo. Please be extremely cautious of the above message. I think it is likely that this is from a sockpuppet of the Globally Banned, Long Term Abuser Belteshazzar, trying to trick you into reinstating his reverted edits for him. He has tried to recruit unsuspecting editors to his cause in the past. For the record, NinjaRobotPirate was correct to revert his edit. That is exactly what it says to do in the LTA report. Of course, you, as an editor in good standing, were free to reinstate it.

It is up to you whether you want to look at this at all, but if you do decide to reinstate any more of his minor changes, based on your own analysis of their correctness, then please be aware that he is acting in bad faith, trying to legitimise his presence on a site which he is banned from, and that he will probably try to trick you into making other, bad, edits on his behalf. Probably the simplest thing would be not to engage here at all. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:09, 26 November 2023 (UTC)