User talk:ElKevbo

Archives

August 2005 – July 2006 August 2006 – October 2006 November 2006 – February 2007 March 2007 – April 2007 May 2007 – July 2007 August 2007 September – November 2007 December 2007 – August 2008 September 2008 – December 2008 December 2008 – December 2009 December 2009 – October 2010 November 2010 – April 2011 May 2011 – October 2011 November 2011 – April 2012 May 2012 – November 2012 December 2012 – May 2013 June 2013 – December 2013 January 2014 – December 2014 January 2015 – December 2015 January 2016 – June 2016 July 2016 – July 2017

Edit on Lake Erie College

Hi El Kevbo, Dawn Powell is Lake Erie College's most notable alumna, which was stated in the first sentence of the section. That is why her bio is on the Lake Erie College page. The bio is focused on her connections to the institution, so it is relevant to the page.

Talk:Claremont McKenna College ‎

You might want to look a bit closer at what you are restoring. While most of that material did not need to be removed, one bit was definitely an unsourced BLP violation and was correctly removed. Meters (talk) 05:39, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. Our colleague who removed the material made no effort to discuss or describe the material or any reasons for removing it so it looked like just a new editor who was confused or a teeny bit misguided. ElKevbo (talk) 14:05, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I completely understand how you could have missed it. I was just letting you know why I did a partial undo of your edit. Meters (talk) 17:57, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Edit on Open Learning

Hi El Kevbo: I had a question about your edit here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Open_learning&oldid=794574822 You provided a reason of "remove reference spam." While I am not a great fan of the lack of the editors in terms of adding to the coherence of the article, I wondered how to square the edit with the fact that there is a verifiability banner on the article calling for more citations. Since the authors cite to a peer-reviewed article, it would seem that their edit is in keeping with the banner's request. Just wondering . . . Yours, Bob Cummings (talk) 21:01, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, I removed that link because one editor had edited many articles solely to add links to that specific journal (after first creating an article for the journal). In other words, he or she appears to be a single-purpose editor interested in promoting the journal. Most (all?) of the specific journal articles to which he or she linked were at best tangentially related to the articles' topic and in at least one case was not related at all except for a few keywords in the journal article's title.

I have no objections whatsoever to another editor reviewing the reference(s) and adding them back to the article(s) after determining that they are indeed relevant and useful. ElKevbo (talk) 21:27, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

OK, I understand. I wasn't aware that the edit was part of a series of edits to promote an academic article. Thanks for that context. Bob Cummings (talk) 16:53, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia: ANI Civility Warning Request

I have placed a formal request on the Wikipedia administrators noticeboard to issue you a civility warning. Feel free to leave comments there. Jajhill (talk) 04:35, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Closed no action. BTW, your analysis of the history of the info box is spot on. And the RfC was clearly closed favoring omission of address for university campuses while endorsing it for high schools. Thanks for what you do here! John from Idegon (talk) 06:14, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, John; I appreciate the kind words. ElKevbo (talk) 13:34, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Always glad to help a fellow denizen of Dunn Meadow. John from Idegon (talk) 15:15, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 September 2017

• News and notes: Chapter updates; ACTRIAL

• In the media: Monkey settlement; Wikipedia used to give AI context clues

• Humour: Chickenz

• Recent research: Wikipedia articles vs. concepts; Wikipedia usage in Europe

• Technology report: Flow restarted; Wikidata connection notifications

• Gallery: Chicken mania

• Special report: Two steps forward, one step backward: The Sustainability Initiative

• Traffic report: Fights and frights

• Featured content: Flying high

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:20, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Roman vs Catholic

I am following the conventions at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Catholic_Church). When there is no need to differentiate between Catholics and Old Catholics, the 'Roman part is redundant and unnecessary.Eccekevin (talk) 20:26, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

A proposed policy created two weeks ago is not a "convention." Please follow the advice that several editors have provided and find a consensus in the article's Talk page. ElKevbo (talk) 21:38, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

UNH student gov't

I've replaced the text you deleted. These edits are accurate, and I'd appreciate if you didn't undo this information without cause. If you believe I've entered false information, please bring it to my attention. I'm certain that's not the case, though. Cheers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_New_Hampshire?wteswitched=1#Student_government — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wildcat jab (talk • contribs) 14:23, October 15, 2017 (UTC)

I deleted the text; you can't just copy from a source directly into a Wikipedia article even if you do cite the source. ElKevbo (talk) 18:53, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Right, well the text is created by GSS (including myself), but I see your point. I'm adding paraphrased text with citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wildcat jab (talk • contribs) 15:01, October 15, 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. But be careful editing an article with which you have a conflict of interest. ElKevbo (talk) 21:58, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

POV-pushing and self-published sources

Self-sourced, POV-pushing ("excellent", "of its calider", "ranked as one of the best") content has been added to this article by first time editors. As you seem to be focusing on academic articles, I thought you would know if this is par for the course or strange. Some of the content could probably be kept, but toned down and they would need to find RS, perhaps on Newspapers.com. Can you please take care of this? And please reply here on your talkpage if you do. Thanks!Zigzig20s (talk) 11:04, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

The challenge here is that some universities (e.g., Vanderbilt) really are "ranked as one of the best" so it's actually important that the article says that. We shouldn't get carried away and we have to be wary of people pushing an overly positive POV but if an institution really is well known for being the best at something, or just really good in general, then that should be in the article and in the lead if it's really, really well known. ElKevbo (talk) 14:21, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

On a related note, shouldn't the lede of the University of Mississippi mention Faulkner?Zigzig20s (talk) 11:05, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps. I'm not enough of an American literature expert to know but it sounds plausible! ElKevbo (talk) 14:21, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 October 2017

• News and notes: Money! WMF fundraising, Wikimedia strategy, WMF new office!

• Featured content: Don, Marcel, Emily, Jessica and other notables

• Humour: Guys named Ralph

• In focus: Offline Wikipedia developed at OFF.NETWORK Content Hackathon

• Blog: The future of offline access to Wikipedia: The Kiwix example

• In the media: Facebook and poetry

• Special report: Working with GLAMs in the UK

• Traffic report: Death, disaster, and entertainment

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Did I miss something?

I feel like I must be missing something. The article you created New Hampshire Institute of Politics Looks like it was substantially created from this site, which is not freely licensed. I wondered if this was a restoration of an article but I didn't see that it was. Did I miss something?--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:47, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

No, the new article's material was moved from the main Saint Anselm College article. That website appears to be a copy of that Wikipedia article which is why the text is the same. (I didn't write the original material so it's still possible that some or all of it is from one or more copyrighted sources but there are many sources cited and it's mostly several years old so a quick glance indicates that it might be alright.) ElKevbo (talk) 20:55, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Can you look at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. While talking about copying I think it applies here as well.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:16, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for reminder.

I recommend you remove the speedy deletion template at the article in question; it's clearly a mistake and it would be annoying if someone else had to clean it up! ElKevbo (talk) 21:38, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I already did.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:46, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, I did, but I was reverted. Trying again.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:47, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Alpha Kappa Alpha

It was copied from Delta Sigma Theta.Naraht (talk) 21:29, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Might as well...

...revert them at the University of Kansas article, too. Corky ^{Buzz by the Hornet's Nest} 00:42, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Saw it just after your message. :)

I recommend holding a larger discussion and then incorporating the result at WP:UNIGUIDE. ElKevbo (talk) 00:43, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Personally, I like the pictures being in the article but the others didn't and I'm not going to debate it... Corky ^{Buzz by the Hornet's Nest} 00:49, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly one way or the other but I'm bothered by the way in which the decision was made. Let's have an open discussion, let everyone who wants to participate have their say, and then ensure the decision is enforced consistently and transparently. ElKevbo (talk) 01:24, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Question - Education's go to User

Hey there. I thought I would ask the expert considering I'm not getting a response on the talk page. I'm having trouble with the "THE_WSJ" parameter for the US university ranking template. It's not being recognized? Do you have any experience with this? Thanks! Pdyusmep (talk) 16:28, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 November 2017

• News and notes: Cons, cons, cons

• Arbitration report: Administrator desysoped; How to deal with crosswiki issues; Mister Wiki case likely

• Technology report: Searching and surveying

• Interview: A featured article centurion

• WikiProject report: Recommendations for WikiProjects

• In the media: Open knowledge platform as a media institution

• Traffic report: Strange and inappropriate

• Featured content: We will remember them

• Recent research: Who wrote this? New dataset on the provenance of Wikipedia text

• Humour: Good faith (but still incomprehensible)

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:40, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

University Endowments on institution page vs on system Page

Hello ElKevbo,
I was reading through the Texas A&M University article and was looking at the subsection on the endowment. In it there is mention of a significantly lower College Station endowment (e.g. $259M vs $10B). I am puzzled as to the rationale as to why the system endowment is placed in the endowment field for a specific institution within the system? The NACUBO study includes references for the system. It would be obvious on it's face then that the system is not the College Station specific institution. Thus, the NACUBO study does not factually report the actual, specific endowment figure for that institution. It would be reasonable to conclude that source is not reliable for the specific institution page and should be included in the system page. I see that this was discussed at least twice before on that page and would theoretically impact other similar pages institution specific pages such as Texas Tech University and University of Minnesota. I was wondering what the final conclusion was from the archived discussion? Can you advise if there should be a systematic review of these? From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Texas_A%26M_University/Archive_8#Use_of_a_primary_source_for_endowment Randomeditor1000 (talk) 04:08, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

It's likely that the NACUBO study is limited to reporting what the institutions tell them. I don't think there are any consistent, agreed upon standards for this information (I'm not a financial analyst or business officer so I may be wrong!).

I recommend raising the issue at WT:UNI, perhaps followed by a well-developed RfC once the issues have been initially worked out. It seems like we should agree on a standard approach across articles of systems and institutions that are part of systems e.g., "to the extent that reliable sources permit we will report endowment values for both the individual campuses and at the system level with both values clearly labeled and referenced." I caution, however, that this information may not always be available and it is easy for amateurs and novices to misinterpret and misunderstand so we should insist on only using sources that anyone can understand e.g., we cannot rely on corporate tax filings.

(This is the kind of situation that I think we're all trying to avoid by using the NACUBO data; we hope that they are able to collect and report this information in a consistent manner. It might be hopelessly naive on our part!) ElKevbo (talk) 05:46, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Using a consensus approach seems like a good idea. I'm not an expert in this area, for now I will start a general subject over at UNI and see if there is any interest in discussing. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 03:55, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Notability opinion, please

[1] EEng 22:14, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that. He has an article and more information that nearly all of the other entries in that table so I figured that it wasn't worth worrying about. The whole table could really use a cleanup with some clear guidelines for inclusion if someone else has the time and energy. ElKevbo (talk) 22:24, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Fully agree about the list, and it's a general problem for all the Harvard lists. Maybe when I retire. But on this guy, have you looked at the refs in his article? Independent? EEng 22:36, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Not the best sourcing but far from the worst. I'm more annoyed by the sloppy placement of the subject (not in alphabetical order) and sloppy insertion of raw URLs as references. ElKevbo (talk) 00:26, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what it says that Harvard has pretty much the raggediest suite of articles of all the major universities. EEng 00:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, ElKevbo. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Acceptance rate

This. That editor keeps adding self-published content to the lede by the way. They don't seem to understand, or want to understand, what ledes are for and why we try to use reliable third-party sources as much as possible... I've decided to take a breather from editing that article for a few days, but I've just seen your response on the WikiProject talkpage, so you may or may not want to fix this! Thank you!Zigzig20s (talk) 03:24, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

The acceptance rate is also mentioned in the lede of Northwestern University. Wuld you mind trimming it from both ledes please?Zigzig20s (talk) 08:43, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Need feedback: Controversy section - include name of TA or not?

In the Controversy section of History, the name of the central figure (the TA) was included. A User deleted it today. I reverted that so the name of the person remained in the content.

Another User then reverted my edited and suggested this be discussed in Talk. (I agree, but could this not be done without reverting my edit?)

Question Do you support including the name of the TA, the central figure in the controversy?

When did Wikipedia articles begin deleting names?? Peter K Burian (talk) 17:05, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I recommend posting this question to the article's Talk page so everyone else can more easily see it and respond.

To answer the question: I'm not convinced that the TA is actually central to the issue. It's the faculty and administration (and student and politician and general public) response to the initial TA issue that has really blown up (although I'm betting that it will remain a tempest in a teapot despite the political posturing by commentators eager to make hay out of any issue that speaks to their biases). She is not a public figure and readers simply don't gain anything by knowing her name. WP:BLP demands that we respect her privacy to the extent possible and practical. I think that is not censorship but basic human decency.

I acknowledge that at some point even a private person can be become so central to a single public event that it becomes necessary to use his or her name for the sake of clarity and accuracy. I simply don't think that we've reached that point here. ElKevbo (talk) 17:23, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm ... I was trying to post it to the article's TALK page; I have since done so. How private a person is the TA, Lindsay Shepherd? She is writing newspaper articles about the Laurier situation: FINANCIAL POST Lindsay Shepherd: WLU's interrogation revealed how university has lost sight of its key purpose - How can humanities departments justify charging students tuition if they are not teaching them to think critically? http://nationalpost.com/opinion/lindsay-shepherd-wlus-interrogation-revealed-how-university-has-lost-sight-of-its-key-purposePeter K Burian (talk) 17:49, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 December 2017

• Special report: Women in Red World Contest wrap-up

• Blog: Close encounters of the Wikipedia kind

• Featured content: Featured content to finish 2017

• In the media: Stolen seagulls, public domain primates and more

• Arbitration report: Last case of 2017: Mister Wiki editors

• Gallery: Wiki loving

• Interview: Interview with Charlesjsharp, regular contributor of Wikipedia's Featured Pictures

• Recent research: French medical articles have "high rate of veracity"

• Technology report: Your wish lists and more Wikimedia tech

• Traffic report: Notable heroes and bad guys

• Humour: On their way to the WMF Incubator

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:28, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

COI Noticeboard Request

Hi ElKevbo, I have asked the editors of the COI Noticeboard to review your concern reference my recent edit to the FSU article.

"To avoid a possible appearance of a conflict as articulated by @ElKevbo I am placing a request for an edit review on the COI Noticeboard."

Hope this resolves your concern. Cheers! Sirberus (talk) 13:10, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I added an NCAA Infractions subsection to the athletics section of the main FSU article. Such a section should likely be added to every university which violates NCAA rules. The NCAA keeps count and I am dismayed to find my alma mater checking in with 7 violations since 1968. Such editing at other schools will likely create a firestorm of pushback, but it should be done. Sirberus (talk) 14:06, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Happy New Year!

Hello ElKevbo: Thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia, and have a great New Year! Cheers, Corky 02:49, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year snowman}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.

Hope you had a good Christmas, as well! Corky 02:49, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 January 2018

• News and notes: Communication is key

• In the media: The Paris Review, British Crown and British Media

• Featured content: History, gaming and multifarious topics

• Interview: Interview with Ser Amantio di Nicolao, the top contributor to English Wikipedia by edit count

• Technology report: Dedicated Wikidata database servers

• Humour: Why don't we have an article about _________?

• Arbitration report: Mister Wiki is first arbitration committee decision of 2018

• Traffic report: The best and worst of 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:28, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Cameron University

Hi Kevin, As I was trying to figure out how to navigate this "talk" feature, I received the email that you have initiated a new discussion at Talk:Cameron University. I am new to the editing aspects of Wikipedia, so I thank you for making me aware of this feature. Even with the email, I cannot ascertain how to access the Talk:CameronUniversity section. Clearly, I have a lot to learn. Any guidance you can provide would be much appreciated.

I would like to respond to your three points: 1. The section is entirely unsourced. - I added Cameron University as a source since the university developed and initiated this campaign. Please clarify what is lacking in that source.

2. The information simply isn't very interesting. - That is a subjective statement. I'm sure that are MILLIONS of sections on Wikipedia that you, I, and countless others find uninteresting. Yet if they are relevant to the topic page, they most likely are of interest to others.

3. It's an incredibly bad idea for someone with a clear conflict of interest to not only edit this article but moreover to revert others' edits without even the courtesy of an edit summary or discussion in Talk. - I'm not sure how it is a conflict of interest for someone who is affiliated with Cameron University to review edits to the page to insure accuracy and relevant content. I do think your point about revert edits without an explanation is valid. Again, thank you for making me aware of the Talk feature!

Please be aware that we are currently in the process of revising the entire Cameron University page. As with many Wikipedia pages, most of the content was posted years ago (the Centennial Campaign section is a prime example)and is in dire need of updating. Can you please provide insight on what is considered proper sourcing so that as we go forward, we make sure we meet those parameters?

Thank you for any information you can provide!

Janet E.D. Cameron (talk) 15:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@E.D. Cameron: Thanks for your response! I'll reply to each of your three points below:

1. We need a specific source, an artifact (website, printed publication, video, etc.) that meets our standards for reliability.

2. To gauge what is normally included in Wikipedia articles about universities, it may be helpful to review our advice for college and university articles. It may also be helpful to look at the very best college and university articles to get an idea of what some editors believe is ideal for these kinds of articles. In general, I recommend (a) keeping in mind that this is an encyclopedia for a general audience and (b) maintaining the long view on article content i.e., is this critical information of lasting importance?

3. I strongly recommend recommend you review our policies regarding conflicts of interest. This is an encyclopedia and it's highly inappropriate for people to editing it as if it's just an extension of their employer's website. I recommend that you not make significant edits to articles about your employer but instead that you make requests and recommendations in the article's Talk page so other editors who don't have a conflict of interest can evaluate the material and determine whether it's appropriate to include.

We would very much appreciate you making minor, uncontroversial edits to the article to help bring it up to date! But please don't make major edits to the article; run those by other editors in Talk and let them make the actual edits. ElKevbo (talk) 16:32, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I've copied my reply to the university's Talk page; let's keep the discussion there so other editors are more easily able to find it and participate if they wish. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 20:28, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

educationews.org

Hi! I'm trying to dig up the discussion about the reliability of educationews.org. Do you know where that is? - Bilby (talk) 05:27, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't know of any such discussion. I do know that there is no apparent evidence that the source meets our standards for reliability. ElKevbo (talk) 11:04, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

On what grounds? I don't have a problem with removing unreliable sources, although I'd rather take a more careful approach. That said, I don't know what the problem with this source is, so I don't know how to address the issues. - Bilby (talk) 11:16, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't know how else to say it: The source doesn't appear to meet our standards for reliability. Although it does have a brief "About" page, it doesn't seem to provide evidence that the the site has a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." The specific quote in the article that you've been editing, for example, seems to have been copied from another website altogether. At its best, the articles on the site appear to just be repeating information from other sites (like the previously discussed quote); at its worst, the articles are obvious spam for essay writing services. ElKevbo (talk) 11:37, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

The difficulty is that you're removing the reference and leaving the content that it was sourcing intact but without a ref. This creates two problems - one is that we end up with unsourced content (especially notable with a quotations that don't have anything to show where they came from), and the other is that using content from their site without acknowledgement ends up being akin to plagiarism. If the issue is that they are repackaging articles from elsewhere, then we have the option of tracking down the original. But if the issue is that you believe that we just can't use the site because it isn't reliable, then we need to remove the content as well. - Bilby (talk) 11:49, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

The majority of the content is innocuous e.g., data that was originally copied from IPEDS, trivial information that essentially says "this college exists." The other content probably does require a source but (a) it should be easy to find (since the educationnews articles are pretty good about citing their original source(s)) and (b) is also relatively innocuous. So editors who are interested in continuing this cleanup should have an easy time doing so! ElKevbo (talk) 13:56, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

"Revert" in edit summaries

Appreciate your message. It's quite reasonable. Mason.Jones (talk) 19:35, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Recent Edit

When referring to a singular, proper entity, common nouns will typically be capitilized (so "a college," "the College"). See multiple, established sources, such as:

https://news.dartmouth.edu/news/2017/12/early-decision-applications-135-percent Mercury42 (talk) 17:56, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

@Mercury42: We don't do that here. ElKevbo (talk) 18:17, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, who's "We"? My understanding is that Wikipedia is decentralized and that editors work independenty. In any event, it would seem important to obey the forms of proper style and usage irrespective of precedent. Personally, I'd like to see an example from an independent, established source (e.g., Harper's, the New York Times) that confirms the lower case usage of "the college" in the context we are discussing. Mercury42 (talk) 18:37, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Please read the page I linked above; it's part of Wikipedia's Manual of Style, a guideline that has widespread consensus among editors. If you think it's incorrect, you're welcome to advocate for a change! ElKevbo (talk) 18:47, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 5 February 2018

• Op-ed: Do editors have the right to be forgotten?

• Featured content: Wars, sieges, disasters and everything black possible

• Recent research: Automated Q&A from Wikipedia articles; Who succeeds in talk page discussions?

• Blog: New monthly dataset shows where people fall into Wikipedia rabbit holes

• Interview: Interview with The Rambling Man, Wikipedia's top contributor of Featured Lists

• Traffic report: TV, death, sports, and doodles

• Special report: Cochrane–Wikipedia Initiative

• Arbitration report: New cases requested for inter-editor hostility and other collaboration issues

• In the media: Solving crime; editing out violence allegations

• Humour: You really are in Wonderland

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:13, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Source for Bruce E. Grewcock

Here is a source that Bruce E. Grewcock went to Mines: https://themoles.net/aboutUs_awards_Grewcock.php