User talk:ElKevbo

Wikibreak and invite

Hi ElKevbo! I see you're still on wikibreak—take as much time as you need, but just wanted to say we'll be grateful when you return, as the work you do here is really valuable (even if the PR folks you battle with don't tend to recognize it haha). I wanted to extend a particular invitation to comment on the Pomona peer review if you're interested. I'm trying to get that article into the best possible shape so that it can serve as a model for others, so it'd be extremely useful to have your expert insights about it and (I hope) your support once it goes to FAC. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:37, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

One other: it would also be very helpful to have your insights here if you are interested. I hope to see you back again soon! {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:39, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I second that emotion. Kevin, you have done great work in the Wikipedia space, work that has been admirable and remarkable. The numbers alone are mind-boggling: almost 100,000 edits and almost 3,000 articles created! CollegeMeltdown (talk) 20:00, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Kevin; great to see that you're back! To give you an update, I'm planning to launch the Pomona FAC within the next few days, and the Texas A&M FAR is still open. Your thoughts would definitely be appreciated at either article, since it's so important that we have more than just Georgetown to point to as "here's an example of what a good college article should look like". If you plan to share some thoughts on Pomona, lmk and I can hold off on the FAC until you've had a chance to do a peer review of sorts. Also, as always, let us know on the project page if you're encountering troublesome articles anywhere and would like help. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:07, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

@Sdkb: Thanks for the reminders about those FACs. I don't have anything to add to them. In my experience, there are so few editors that regularly work on higher education-focused articles that it's no surprise that articles that were once up-to-date (both in terms of content and compliance with current Wikipedia standards) slowly fall into disrepair.

If there are any specific comments or issues where you would like my input, please feel free to ping me! ElKevbo (talk) 02:26, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Will do! Regarding disrepair, there's not much we can do regarding standards compliance (hopefully Wikipedia is mature enough that standards in the future won't evolve as drastically as they have in the past), but for content, I think a key thing is Wikidata integration. Getting an army of editors to update e.g. student body size every year will never be feasible, but setting up an import of IPEDS data and running it once a year should be doable. Mike Peel and I were working on getting the infobox to be capable of drawing data from Wikidata a little while back, and I hope that'll eventually come to fruition. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:35, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

John Jay Article

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

UW-Eau Claire 9 November 2021

Hi ElKevbo! We noticed that you removed the controversies section of the UW-Eau Claire wiki page. Right now, Hernanma7296, Popps3637, Kyliejudd, and I are editing this wikipedia page for a group project. A big part of our editing was on the controversies section to make sure they were all correct and accurately represented. Is there a specific way we should include this in the history? The controversies section has been in the UWEC wikipedia page for quite a while, so we just want to understand how you think we should incorporate these separate events into the history. Thanks for any guidance you can provide!Meyerle9611 (talk) 17:42, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hi Meyerle9611—thanks for working on the page! The main consideration here is WP:NOTNEWS. Most universities have regular controversies of one sort or another, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia rather than a newspaper, and our goal is to summarize information of historical importance rather than to provide detailed coverage of every controversy. Think about whether or not someone ten or even fifty years in the future would find the level of detail provided on an incident appropriate in a several paragraph—length account of the university's history, and keep it only if so and only at a reasonable length, merged into the overall history section. Hope that helps! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:38, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 November 2021

• In the media: Denial: climate change, mass killings and pornography

• WikiCup report: The WikiCup 2021

• Deletion report: What we lost, what we gained

• From a Wikipedia reader: What's Matt Amodio?

• Arbitration report: ArbCom in 2021

• Discussion report: On the brink of change – RFA reforms appear imminent

• Technology report: What does it take to upload a file?

• WikiProject report: Interview with contributors to WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers

• Serendipity: "Did You Know ..." featured a photo of the wrong female WWII pilot

• News from Diff: Content translation tool helps create one million Wikipedia articles

• Traffic report: Reporting ticket sales on the edge of the Wiki, if Eternals should fail

• Recent research: Vandalizing Wikipedia as rational behavior

• Humour: A very new very Wiki crossword

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:46, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks and question from a new editor

Hello, ElKevgo,

I wanted to thank you for your your catch on the US Education page. I was doing a general citation hunt, and didn't look too close at Great Value Colleges aside from their "About Us" page. After your partial revert, I did more digging and found | this article that points out some methodology issues there. Good catch!

As a new editor, I have two questions, if you have the time to answer. I double checked WP:RS, and still have some thoughts, so I'm hoping you might be willing to share some wisdom. 1) How did you know so quickly that Great Value Colleges wasn't a reliable source? I know I missed the warning signs on my first pass, and my thoughts were treating it similarly to how travel guides are cited to verify features of places. Clearly, I was wrong in that. Is there a rule of thumb you use, which perhaps I can employ to avoid making work for editors like you in the future?

2) I was a little surprised the college board source got through. My concern there is that the college board has a vested interest in promoting AP classes. It also was the most reliable looking source I could find, but it means I'm not sure how WP:SPONSORED should be applied. Are my concerns re: the college board baseless?

In any case, thank you for your help earlier, and that goes double if you find time to help a newbie like me. Cheers! EducatedRedneck (talk) 13:59, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

@EducatedRedneck: Those are both good questions and I'm happy to help!

The source that I removed is one that is owned by a company that exists to sale advertising and leads to institutions who are recruiting students. I have never done the legwork to figure out exactly which company it is - there are probably several - but I recognize the design of the website as one that they commonly use (the three dropdown menus on the side or at the top allowing you to search among their clients is a common giveaway).

The College Board source is okay for uncontroversial claims. You're right that they have a vested interest in supporting or promoting their own work and products so we cannot take everything they say at face value. And of course it would be much better to have a reference from another source that we hope is more objective. So I think your concerns have merit but if the claim that is being supported isn't one that is outlandish or overtly promotional then it's probably okay until someone can find a better source. ElKevbo (talk) 22:48, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

@ElKevbo Thank you so much for the reply! Those are both very useful pieces of guidance; I'll make sure to use them! I suspect my own research, which has been strictly in peer-reviewed journals, has dulled my skills at assessing non-academic sources. I'll try to keep a better eye out in the future. And good point re: uncontroversial claims from the college board. That answers both my questions quite nicely; I really appreciate you taking the time to respond and help out a newbie.

Thank you again, and I hope you have a great weekend! EducatedRedneck (talk) 23:33, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

University of houston downtown page

As an allum of UH I am wondering why you undid my edit. There is a lot of history between the two schools, I can give you some of the history if you want. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.244.37.107 (talk) 09:31, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Academic Influence's inclusion/exclusion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/College_and_university_rankings

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This is the first time I'm using Wikipedia's talk feature to try to resolve an editing difference, so please bear with me. A few months ago, I happened to see that Academic Influence (AcademicInfluence.com) had a sub-entry in the Wikipedia article on college and university rankings. I was happy to see that someone had made this subentry because I regard Academic Influence as the most exciting development in college and university rankings of late. I therefore added a few additional references, only to find that the subentry was taken down because user Max Exon said that Academic Influence didn't do international or global rankings of universities. That claim was inaccurate since Academic Influence does indeed rank universities internationally, not only as such but also by discipline. So I reverted the subentry and added further citations indicating that Academic Influence does indeed to global rankings. Several weeks went by, and this time Max Exon removed the Academic Influence subentry on the charge of insufficient notability. On this point, I'm not sure how to resolve the matter. Ahrefs.com, which I use in my web business to asses the domain authority and reach of websites, shows the AcademicInfluence.com keeps pace with some of the other academic rankings organizations mentioned in the article. I was going to add to the article today that Academic Influence is unique among ranking sites (as far as I know) in also ranking academic persons by influence, which has led to many notable academics being interviewed with them, including several Nobel laureates (such as Paul Krugman) and some very big public intellectuals, such as Steven Pinker and Niall Ferguson (https://academicinfluence.com/interviews). At the very least, I think it could be said that AcademicInfluence.com is an up and coming ranking website with high aspirations to be a major and serious player in the college and university ranking world. So if they are not far enough along to merit inclusion in this article, what more do they need to do? A Google search will reveal that Forbes did two articles on them. A Google search will also show that schools like Harvard, Stanford, and Columbia link to them. Would a NYTimes, WSJ, and/or CHE article be the difference maker? Frankly, they take an interesting machine-learning approach to academic rankings, so just on that score, it seems that they merit inclusion. Pudor (talk) 15:47, 14 December 2021 (UTC)Pudor

I'm not sure we ought to be listing as many individual rankings at college and university rankings as we do, rather than just discussing the concept of rankings and the criticisms (note that there's also college and university rankings in the United States). But if we are to do that, I think you have the beginning of a decent case, Pudor, for including that one. The biggest factor for establishing WP:DUEWEIGHT on Wikipedia is coverage in reliable sources, so I'd be interested to see links to the coverage you mentioned. Links from universities themselves don't count for that much since they have an interest in promoting their ranking if they scored well. For Forbes, it matters a lot if it was written by a staff writer or a non-staff contributor, and if the latter, what their credentials are. I'd also be interested to hear from Max Exon. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:11, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't mind have some of that article focused on specific ranking systems. I do think that the current article does a terrible job demonstrating that many of the ranking systems that are discussed are indeed noteworthy. This is a topic that is the focus of scholarly work so that should be our primary source of information, especially in a topic like this that is rife with self-promotion by both ranking systems and the institutions that are highly ranked in them. ElKevbo (talk) 02:16, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

ElKevbo, any suggestions on which scholarly sources to use? In the popular press, Malcolm Gladwell's article (Gladwell, Malcolm (7 February 2011). "The Trouble with College Rankings". The New Yorker.) is the best I've come across, but Gladwell certainly isn't an education scholar, so I'm sure there are better options available. I'd love to see our coverage of this area improved—when people turn to Wikipedia for information on rankings, as they inevitably will, they should be presented with an informed, encyclopedic analysis of how they're viewed by experts, rather than just a parroting of the latest results.

On a related note, I just started this merge proposal, which may be of interest. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:57, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I would suggest that for the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/College_and_university_rankings, only relevant enough and not any ranking should be listed. Academic Influence is not influencial enough. Max Exon (talk) 07:47, 15 December 2021 (UTC)Max

It's kind of ironic that Max Exon sees Academic Influence as not influential enough when it's claim to fame, such as it is, consists in analyzing academic influence. So how can we resolve our difference? Max Exon has removed the Academic Influence subentry twice. I've re-listed it twice. I don't see us seeing eye to eye, so who gets to decide? By the way, the two Forbes articles were written by Mike Nietzel, a past president of Missouri State University (https://www.missouristate.edu/president/nietzel.htm#:~:text=Dr.-,Michael%20T.,University%20of%20Kentucky%2C%20including%20Provost). Also, I see that Malcolm Gladwell was favorably listed above. In that New Yorker piece cited, Gladwell extols Jeffrey Stake, a law professor at Indiana University, for taking on the USNews rankings. Jed Macosko, the president of Academic Influence (and a physics professor at Wake Forest), does an interview with Stake here: https://www.expensivity.com/unreasonable-sway-of-school-rankings. They both seem on the same page. I guess I wonder what Max Exon is looking for in terms of significance? Does any other ranking site have a YouTube channel with academic luminaries on it like this: https://www.youtube.com/c/AcademicInfluence/videos ? It bears pointing out again that Max Exon removed the Academic Influence entry not on the grounds of significance but of relevance, incorrectly claiming that the site did not do international rankings, which it does. Now it's insufficient significance. How does the significance question get decided? Pudor (talk) 15:58, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

@Pudor: Re who gets to decide, Wikipedia works based on a consensus process, so it's basically whichever side has the most support, but unfortunately for you the status quo (non-inclusion) is retained until discussion reaches consensus. ElKevbo or I could be the tiebreaker if you can convince either of us to take a more firm stance. What I'm looking for is evidence that Academic Influence meets the general notability guideline, since even though this isn't about a standalone page for Academic Influence, I'd want to see comparable evidence of significance to consider it due weight for its own section rather than just listed briefly in the "other rankings" section (which could be a compromise). To meet GNG, I'd need to see at least two links with significant coverage of Academic Influence in reliable, independent (meaning not affiliated with Academic Influence or plugging a school ranked by it) secondary sources. Best, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:24, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

@Sdkb: Thanks for this reply Sdkb. I don't mean to be contentious, and an apology is due to Max Exon: it makes sense that the benefit of the doubt would go toward exclusion rather than inclusion of novel material. In trying to make a case for Academic Influence's inclusion, let me therefore offer the following three links to substantial articles that address AcademicInfluence.com:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaeltnietzel/2021/03/07/academic-influence-ranks-the-best-community-colleges-nationally-and-by-state/?sh=2e97cc5a674b

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaeltnietzel/2021/01/27/new-ranking-system-lists-swarthmore-as-nations-1-liberal-arts-college/?sh=3e59df3240ee

https://www.expensivity.com/most-influential-economics-programs-and-economists/

If that's not enough, I can do some more searching. Pudor (talk) 19:47, 15 December 2021 (UTC)Pudor

@Pudor: I do think this is not enough, you should list direct argumentation about the ranking's relevance directly based on its indicators and the fiability of those instead of listing secondary/tertiary sources Max Exon (talk) 13:18, 16 December 2021 (UTC)Max

I strongly disagree with that. It's not our role to evaluate rankings and to judge their worthiness. We're an encyclopedia that neutrally documents topics of significance, and the way we determine significance is by coverage in reliable secondary sources. So that's really the only main criterion here that is supported by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. IAR, I might give a tiny bit of preference to rankings that have a more novel methodology or a less subjective one, just in the interest of balance, but that's a far lesser concern than the coverage.

From the links provided so far, I lean very slightly toward inclusion, but I'd much prefer something stronger. Forbes contributors' work is not checked in an editorial review process, so it is not generally considered reliable. And I have concerns about Expensivity because it does not appear to have any established reputation and its authors seem to write under pen names rather than being willing to associate their identities with their work. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:00, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

https://academicinfluence.com/about/methodology

@Pudor: to answer your remark, there were 2 reasons for removing the section. The first one was that I thought it didn't list international rankings, you did disprove that. However the second issue is unrelated to this and I agree with Sdkb. Max Exon (talk) 13:14, 16 December 2021 (UTC)Max

@Sdkb: the ranking's mention of its methodology is obscure; it doesn't give any weights of its factors for instance https://academicinfluence.com/about/methodology Max Exon (talk) 13:42, 16 December 2021 (UTC)Max

@Sdkb: I guess Max and I are going to disagree. The methodology article that he cites seems meant to be quite general, without getting into the nuts and bolts of what Academic Influence is doing. More compelling, it seems to me, is the article about their influence ranking engine: https://academicinfluence.com/about/influence-ranking-engine. And then there's its white paper describing their "new philosophy of academic ranking," which makes the point that they are using influence as a master criterion, and thus NOT going to be weighting a lot of different criteria (see https://academicinfluence.com/about/new-ranking-philosophy). So it seems we still have no consensus, and if anything I'm now finding myself more in disagreement with Max Exon. The claim that I'm citing secondary sources, as though that counts against including Academic Influence as a subentry in the Wikipedia article in question, seems unreasonable. If the NYTimes writes an article on Academic Influence, it will be in the same vein as those cited. As for the nuts and bolts about their algorithm and machine learning approach, it's on their website (see the about pages, especially those I cited just now), and these to me seem compelling that they are doing something significant and novel in the academic ranking business. So how does this all get resolved?Pudor (talk) 21:37, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I am copying this to the article's Talk page so that other editors who edit that article can more easily read and participate in this discussion (instead just the handful of helpful colleagues who watch my User Talk page). ElKevbo (talk) 03:15, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Signpost: 28 December 2021

• From the editor: Here is the news

• News and notes: Jimbo's NFT, new arbs, fixing RfA, and financial statements

• Serendipity: Born three months before her brother?

• In the media: The past is not even past

• Recent research: STEM articles judged unsuitable for undergraduates below the first paragraph

• Arbitration report: A new crew for '22

• By the numbers: Four billion words and a few numbers

• Deletion report: We laughed, we cried, we closed as "no consensus"

• Gallery: Wikicommons presents: 2021

• Traffic report: Spider-Man, football and the departed

• Crossword: Another Wiki crossword for one and all

• Humour: Buying Wikipedia

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:07, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Greensboro College Seal.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Greensboro College Seal.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. HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 04:01, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Suresh Canagarajah's Entry was Removed

Hi ElKevbo, I was working on Suresh Canagarajah's wikipedia page, and I noticed that you removed the entire entry today. The reason was listed as "way, way too detailed (and likely COI issues, too)". I was wondering if you could provide further details.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PSU-ASC (talk • contribs) 23:43, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't have anything else to add. ElKevbo (talk) 00:30, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Baker College

This looks promotional. Ok, normally no big deal. But I came across this: The Nonprofit College That Spends More on Marketing Than Financial Aid Do you think I should mention it at one of the Education Wikiprojects? Doug Weller talk 16:36, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I think we should mention it here.

(Unsurprisingly, the edit history includes POV edits from EchoDeltaMarketing (indef blocked for spamming/making legal threats), so certainly an article to keep an eye on.) {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:13, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Looks okay. I'm not a fan of giving a single source that much prominence by placing it in the lede but I won't quibble over it in this instance. ElKevbo (talk) 23:19, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, if I were making it into a featured article, I don't think I'd structure it quite like I did there, but as a quick corrective, it seemed appropriate.

One thing I've noticed is that there's definitely some correlation between an institution's reputation and the quality of its article. I'd be interested to see what a true featured article for an institution like Baker would look like and how its sectioning would be weighted. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:59, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

It's also interesting how massive the pageview disparity is. Baker College has 35,000 students but gets 800 pageviews a month. Swarthmore College, at only 1600 students, gets 20x that, and a comparably sized elite university, say University of Pennsylvania (22,000 students), gets 100x that. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:19, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Interesting. I keep feeling there’s something we’re missing. Doug Weller talk 20:00, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Lists of (university or college name) people

Dear ElKevbo: Thank you.[1] However, there was a discussion before I created that guideline. Here is the link:[2]. Ber31 (talk) 13:03, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

By the way, you can provide your views on that discussion. :) Ber31 (talk) 13:08, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 13:13, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

University infobox

I just removed a dozen individuals from the IB for Cotabato State University, but there are still many remaining in |director= and |dean=. The template documentation says these are for "the dean" or "the director". If there are many for different departments, do you normally keep them all, remove them all, keep the first one, etc. MB 00:11, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

My understanding is that an infobox should only have essential information in it. In this instance, that would include the most senior officers of the organization. In the U.S. context, that is usually a president or chancellor and the chief academic officer, normally the provost, for a stand-alone college or university. The infobox isn't intended to list all senior officers of an institution (nor is an article, frankly). In my experience, those particular fields are typically used when the subject is not a stand-alone college or university but is a constituent of a larger organization so the senior officer of the subject has that title e.g., an article about a constituent college may include the dean of the college in the infobox as the dean is the college's most senior officer.

In that specific article, I would remove all of those directors and deans. Wikipedia articles, particularly infoboxes in articles, are not employee directories. ElKevbo (talk) 01:32, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Syracuse University

Dear User:ElKevbo, I hope this message finds you doing well. As you frequently edit the articles of academic institutions, please have a look at this edit. I have reverted them and added a reference. I'd be grateful if you can keep an eye on it. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 06:41, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Will do. The same thing has been happening at Boston University. ElKevbo (talk) 22:21, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I think it behooves us to have good, clear documentation on what our standards are at {{Infobox university}}. What I previously wrote is Use if the institution has an official or strong de facto religious affiliation.

I'm not a huge fan of the Historically affiliated with the Spaghetti Monster Church construction, since it's very wordy for an infobox. For institutions that are clearly secular today but had strong religious ties in their past, I'd prefer Spaghetti Monster Church (historical), and for those that are officially secular but de facto still have ties, I'd prefer just plain Spaghetti Monster Church. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:34, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

An open discussion in a central location would be welcome. So far the removals have been done by one or more unregistered editors who refuse to communicate in any way.

If you have reliable sources that link an institution to His Noodlieness, you're welcome to add the information to the appropriate article. ElKevbo (talk) 22:38, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Community College Updates - SF

Dear ElKevbo,

Please forgive any ignorance on my part in updating the Wiki page for SF. I am an employee of the college and work as a digital content specialist, tasked with getting incorrect and incomplete information off of our social and digital platforms, including Wiki, 3rd party directories, etc. I have made several edits that you have contested. I initially tried to comply with your request that my content did not have suitable citations and put a lot of work into formatting and editing content to be relevant and similar to content seen in breadth on other Wiki pages for colleges of similar size. If you look at the local University in our area there are entire separate pages dedicated to athletics, academic programs, etc., so I do not understand the reasoning that the content provided was too detailed. I have had no need in previous positions to edit content in Wikipedia, so if I am doing something incorrectly I would appreciate gaining that knowledge and using the correct process. Please help me better understand what mistakes I am making or what incorrect information is listed to justify blocking the accurate and correct updates to the page. Again, please provide some additional guidance. 2600:8807:DF00:200:5157:CD5E:4829:750 (talk) 03:28, 26 January 2022 (UTC) A Gregory

Please begin by reviewing our policies about paid editing and conflicts of interest. Once you have complied with those policies, the next step would be to review our advice for college and university articles. You may also find it helpful to look at some of our best articles about colleges and article; Georgetown University and Pomona College are both Featured Articles about U.S. institutions so they might be particularly useful examples. ElKevbo (talk) 12:50, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I have reviewed the policies on paid editing and conflicts of interest. I will from here forward create an account and include information on my profile page indicating my affiliation with the college as an editor. I was being honest and forthright in disclosing this information in the edits made and not trying to be deceptive in any way. I did review the Project Featured articles and many of them have content about athletics and other departments. I will clean up some of the content regarding the programs of service but in terms of a navigational structure I don't see that the subtitles that were added were out of line with the parameters set forth in the project. Editing of this article will evolve as additional resources are uncovered through the college library and learning commons as well as other archived information. For now the initial edits were intended to be a starting point that will be massaged as additional content comes to light. I will make every effort to look at the Pomona and Georgetown entries again and model a response similar to their structure. I do question how to include non-degree seeking programs. As a community college SF offers many non-degree seeking options to improve workforce development and community enrichment. These resources are equally as important to the mission of the college as the degree and certificate track programs. 162.248.67.5 (talk) 13:16, 26 January 2022 (UTC) A Gregory

I think that registering an account and complying with WP:PAID and WP:COI would be an excellent start. Many editors are okay with COI editors making straight-forward, uncontroversial edits to articles (e.g., updating outdated information that's already in the article) but for anything else I strongly recommend that you post suggestions and requests in the article's Talk page. If you don't get a timely response there, you can also drop a line at WT:UNI.

I also think that it would be perfectly appropriate to include some information about non-degree programs. I think that due weight and a neutral point of view may be slightly challenging - there is a difference between including critical information in an encyclopedia article and trying to use Wikipedia to promote the college - but they can be addressed perhaps with help and input from other editors. ElKevbo (talk) 22:49, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 January 2022

• Special report: WikiEd course leads to Twitter harassment

• News and notes: Feedback for Board of Trustees election

• Interview: CEO Maryana Iskander "four weeks in"

• Black History Month: What are you doing for Black History Month?

• Deletion report: Ringing in the new year: Subject notability guideline under discussion

• WikiProject report: The Forgotten Featured

• Arbitration report: New arbitrators look at new case and antediluvian sanctions

• Traffic report: The most viewed articles of 2021

• Gallery: No Spanish municipality without a photograph

• Obituary: Twofingered Typist

• Op-Ed: Identifying and rooting out climate change denial

• Essay: The prime directive

• Opinion: Should the Wikimedia Foundation continue to accept cryptocurrency donations?

• In the media: Fuzzy-headed government editing

• Recent research: Articles with higher quality ratings have fewer "knowledge gaps"

• Serendipity: Pooh entered the Public Domain – but Tigger has to wait two more years

• Crossword: Cross swords with a crossword

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:20, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

IPs edit wars

Hi, IP (93.112.161.51) randomly adding information in Bachelor of Technology, Bachelor of Computing, & Bachelor of Information Technology without putting any sources whatsoever. User can see the edit summaries still adamant in adding all unsourced information's. God knows from where he's getting those info's and adding in these articles. Please look into these articles. I already reverted two of his edits. I think he will again add all those info's. Thanks--60.243.176.128 (talk) 06:10, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi, please inform WP:ANI about IP (93.112.161.51), IP is making disruptive editing. Again he has made disruptive editing in Bachelor of Engineering and Bachelor of Technology articles adding all unsourced information's. Thanks--115.98.212.113 (talk) 04:54, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi @ElKevbo: Please inform WP:ANI against IP (87.109.75.63), he has again added info's randomly without providing any source whatsoever. He tried to revert your edits in Bachelor of Technology and also added info's in Bachelor of Engineering. I already reverted two of his edits. Kindly inform WP:ANI to block such IPs immediately. Thanks--115.98.225.121 (talk) 04:30, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

You are welcome to raise this issue in the articles' Talk pages, the other editor's Talk page(s), or other venues. ElKevbo (talk) 05:34, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

HBCU bomb threats

Greetings ELKevbo -- this is my maiden talk page voyage so sorry if I do something wrong. I am a new comer to editting on Wikipedia and I saw that you removed my recent changes to the HBCU entry. And I accept that it is newsy -- changing every day, as you can see from the 17 HBCUs that were closed just yesterday because of continuing bomb threats. And I think that in the sweep of HBCU history, the wave of bomb threats this year is probably pretty significant, esp since commentators are tying it to terror and hate crimes. Which given the history of race relations in the US would seem to make this a pretty poignant moment. So at what point would this be consider not news, but a significant data point in the history of HBCUs? Thanks and Cheers. ItsJW ItsJW (talk) 13:14, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

@ItsJW: We try to take the long view in writing Wikipedia articles and ask questions such as "Is this just current news? Or is this of lasting importance" Sometimes we can't immediately answer those questions, of course, so material that is initially added to an article gets removed as it becomes clear that it's transient without lasting importance and significance for the subject.

Please feel free to open a discussion in the article's Talk page; you may get different opinions from other editors who may agree with you. ElKevbo (talk) 14:02, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

@ItsJW: Looking at the edit, I think part of the reason it may have gotten reverted was just that it's too long, which raises due weight concerns in addition to the newsiness ones ElKevbo mentioned. If you'd like to try something different, I think something that would be very useful for the HBCU article is a more general statement about HBCUs being more likely to receive threats. If you can find a source saying "on average, HBCUs receive X times more bomb threats than comparable non-HBCUs," definitely feel free to add it. Thanks for your contributions and for coming here to discuss, and I hope you stick around to make more! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:26, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

@ELKevo @ Sdkb: Oaky got it. Thanks for the guidance.ItsJW (talk) 15:14, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Page for University of Louisiana

https://louisiana.edu/about-us/media/proper-use-universitys-name

Please do not use “ULL” to refer to the University of Louisiana. Reference the attached link. Cjm8461 (talk) 23:35, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

@Cjm8461: The university doesn't control Wikipedia or get to dictate to Wikipedia editors how to edit articles. You are welcome to reopen this discussion in the article's Talk page to see if there is a new/changed consensus among editors.

Additionally, if you have a relationship with the university then you should disclose it; if you are being compensated by the university for editing Wikipedia, you are required to disclose that fact. ElKevbo (talk) 23:50, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

So are you being compensated or have a relationship with a university or other entity that would have an interest in not referring to the said university by their proper name? You say “ The university doesn't control Wikipedia or get to dictate to Wikipedia editors how to edit articles.” With that statement being said, I must ask ‘If the university does not have the right to dictate what they are called, then who does?’ Cjm8461 (talk) 00:10, 7 February 2022 (UTC)