Jump to content

User talk:ElKevbo/Archive 30

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25←Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30Archive 31

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

New article questions

Hi! I know you have a lot of expertise in the higher ed space on the project and I wanted to ask for any tips or insight you could provide as I'm building up this draft: User:Pbritti/sandbox/Campus of the College of William & Mary. I want to publish this article in a state that lends itself to a GAN next year with an eye to borrowing material to do the same for College of William & Mary, Wren Building, and History of the College of William & Mary. Thanks, ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:18, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

W&M is understandably a very history-focused school, but to be comprehensive enough in scope to pass GA, the article needs to cover its campus from all angles, not just the history one. Reading the current lead section, I see only historical information, with other very basic details (how many acres? what architectural style(s)?) absent. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 17:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Thank for the comment, Sdkb. Before I publish to the mainspace, expect at least a paragraph on the architectural stylings in the lead. The other sections should be fairly heavily on the architectural descriptions, too. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:07, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
@Pbritti, if you haven't already had a chance to look them over, the three showcase articles for campuses are good (albeit rather dated) models, and Pomona College § Campus (largely my work) is shorter than what you want but also worth looking at. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
That's excellent advice, Sdkb. Glad I could help by providing a venue for this collegial discussion! :) ElKevbo (talk) 00:48, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you both! I'll let you both know if something comes up and I need additional insight. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:40, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

St. Olaf College

Hello - Why is there no information listed about the jazz program at St. Olaf? They have a strong history and just hired their first tenure track director of jazz ensembles. Thanks. 50.220.209.82 (talk) 19:43, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

You're welcome to add some well-sourced, neutral material to the article. Ask in the article's Talk page if you'd like some help or if you'd prefer to share a draft for feedback first. ElKevbo (talk) 00:12, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 December 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:08, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Thailand’s education reformer was defamed

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sukavich_Rangsitpol&oldid=1187942899 2403:6200:89A8:7B4C:1C45:6F06:1AC7:9559 (talk) 15:51, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

The above link was deleted and the present version defamed him. 2403:6200:89A8:7B4C:1C45:6F06:1AC7:9559 (talk) 15:52, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
I'm not seeing the problem here. I recommend opening a discussion in the article's Talk page and providing more specific details. ElKevbo (talk) 00:17, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Union University

Hi ElKevbo,

I asked you a question about Union University in New York Union University (New York) and you provided a very helpful book link. It seems to have been recognized by the NY State Legislature. But it isn't accredited or recognized by the US Dept of Ed or have a 990. I'm just trying to figure out in what corporate form it still exists in 2023. Your book link:

https://archive.org/details/unionuniversity01raymgoog/page/439/mode/2up

Was very helpful in understanding the formation. Jjazz76 (talk) 23:27, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Glad I could help! I wonder if you might get some additional help by contacting the New York State Education Department's Office of Higher Education? ElKevbo (talk) 00:19, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
lol - those folks never answer the phones. Maybe I'll ask the constituent colleges. It seems to be a very, very lose affiliation. Jjazz76 (talk) 04:28, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

TESC

Why are you intentionally publishing the wrong name of The Evergreen State College? What is going on? Slugicide (talk) 17:36, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

I put a link to the most relevant policy in the article's Talk page. You're welcome to try to convince other editors to change the article text or its title. That may go better, however, if you take a less accusatory tone and aggressive approach. ElKevbo (talk) 17:43, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Public Libraries and Lifelong Learning

I see you questioned why I am adding information on the role of public libraries in lifelong learning. I will add more information to respond to your question.Kmccook (talk) 23:46, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Copyeditor's Barnstar
My vision is low. I sometimes miss spacing. An editor like you who helps and doesn't give up on people like me is so appreciated. Kmccook (talk) 12:56, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

A solstice greeting

❄️ Happy holidays! ❄️

Hi ElKevbo! I'd like to wish you a splendid solstice season as we wrap up the year. Here is an artwork, made individually for you, to celebrate. Your work on higher ed articles is invaluable. Take care, and thanks for all you do to make Wikipedia better!
Cheers,
{{u|Sdkb}} talk
Solstice Celebration for ElKevbo, 2023, DALL·E 3. (View full series) Note: The vibes are winter solsticey. If you're in the southern hemisphere, oops, apologies.
Solstice Celebration for ElKevbo, 2023, DALL·E 3.
Note: The vibes are winter solsticey. If you're in the southern hemisphere, oops, apologies.

{{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:33, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 December 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:57, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Why did you remove address?

Moved to Talk:Western Washington University § Address
 – {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:12, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 January 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:48, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Oregon Institute of Technology

Hi Professor ElKevbo! What was wrong with making the only picture of the Oregon Institute of Technology article slightly bigger?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8080:5101:6A00:1C39:43C9:641B:A14 (talk) 01:17, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

The image is currently in the article as a thumbnail (using the "thumb" parameter). Wikipedia editors control the default size of thumbnail images through their preferences and we should override that default size only when necessary. If the image should be larger, you can consider not making it a thumbnail. ElKevbo (talk) 01:42, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
"thumb" also allows one to set the width i.e.
Klamath Falls campus in 2014
Klamath Falls campus in 2014
Irrespective, what was wrong with making the picture bigger??
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8080:5101:6a00:1c39:43c9:641b:a14 (talk • contribs) 20:50, January 21, 2024 (UTC)
WP:THUMBSIZE is part of our policy - it has widespread consensus among Wikipedia editors. ElKevbo (talk) 01:52, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
If it's any consolation, IP, there's currently a proposal to increase the default thumbnail size, so it may soon be larger anyways. The only situations in which I'd support overriding the default would be those where there's a particular reason (e.g. important details in the image that could not be seen at normal thumb size). {{u|Sdkb}} talk 03:32, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 January 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:13, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Roseman University of Health Sciences

Why are updates to correct grossly inaccurate statements edited back to misinformation?

The University has a third campus in Summerlin. Not just two campuses. The University has co-founders, not one founder.

The University no longer offers a Master of Business Administration, but other colleges and programs have been added.

The nursing programs are not accredited by the NLNAC, but instead the CCNE. This was corrected and cited properly.

Also, the titles of the individuals in reference to the University name portmanteau are incorrect. 64.47.178.202 (talk) 19:58, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 February 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:34, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Kean University

You want to take another whack at reducing it, or should everything that the user changed just be reverted. Note, I'm OK with the list of greeks, if properly referenced.Naraht (talk) 00:58, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I removed the material that I originally removed a few days ago as discussed in the article's Talk page. I don't have an opinion on the listing of Greek letter organizations. ElKevbo (talk) 01:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Regarding The University of Alabama at Birmingham

Hi, I noticed that you reverted one of my edits to this page. I'd like to discuss this revert: are you sure it's necessary? I was pretty aggressive about cutting the content of this article, so I wouldn't mind seeing some of it readded, but are details such as the address of the Birmingham Extension Center and it's 1984 renaming -- neither of which are cited -- really necessary to note in the article?

I'm going to undo the revert if I don't hear back in 24 hours. Thanks. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:38, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Removing or tagging unsourced info is one thing. Simply removing a lot of material without explanation except to "condense" it is another. It's completely okay to have a few paragraphs about the university's history - that is not inappropriately long and in dire need of being "condensed."
You're welcome to open a discussion in the article's Talk page to see what other editors think. ElKevbo (talk) 02:58, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Would you have any objection to just removing the uncited content? Again, I'm not particularly dogmatic about retaining all the deletions I made, but I do think that uncited material, especially at the level of minute detail as an address used more than 60 years ago, should probably go. HyperAccelerated (talk) 03:04, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
You are well within your rights to remove unsourced material. Many editors prefer that such material be tagged as unsourced first but I think we should use our own judgement about whether that approach is appropriate in any specific case. ElKevbo (talk) 03:06, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Noted, thanks. I'll go ahead and remove that content now. In the meantime, feel free to revert any changes as you see fit. HyperAccelerated (talk) 03:08, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your great work!

When I first encountered the disruptive editing of Summerdays1 (not going to ping 'em, I think they have enough to worry about), I didn't see the bigger scope of what was going on. I just saw someone trying to slow-edit-war what seemed to me to be mostly poor changes into random pages. The past day or two, after becoming unintentionally "involved," I saw that they kept returning to persistently re-do the same non-improvements to seemingly every page they had touched. To be honest, it aggravated me a fair bit!

Waking up to a vague and unproductive message from them on my talk page was pretty discouraging (especially as they completely ignored the specific MOS-breaking changes I had called out) and it would have felt a lot worse if I didn't see that you swiftly countered many of their disruptive edits. In the process, you showed more poise and patience than I think I ever could have. Thank you for making me feel not-alone in this, and for the tireless work you do to improve and protect the encyclopedia!

The positive side of this weird little drama, for me, is that it brought my attention to the contributions of you and a few other editors who are so carefully maintaining the thankless work of cleaning up university pages and others that are likely more frequently beset by well-intentioned insertion of unencyclopedic content. I had never thought about how these sorts of pages are so much more likely to receive "drive-by edits" from excited but connected contributors, and I'm sure sometimes that becomes a headache.

Just wanted to let you know how appreciative I am that you "hold it down" on these fronts for the pillars of en.wiki- your work does not go unnoticed! As I take baby steps towards being a more hands-on long-term contributor, I am inspired by you and other editors like you, and I aim to do my part in protecting and enhancing this lovely experiment in open, consensus-driven knowledge-building.

Best wishes and happy editing! Chelsea aka Chiselinccc (talk) 17:04, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words! ElKevbo (talk) 01:44, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Here

Is there a reason you seek conflict? I have opened a number of talk page discussions. Please explain here each of your edits. Summerdays1 (talk) 09:05, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

For six years, since January 2018, you have been removing a ton of information on university and college pages. Much of it is in error. Summerdays1 (talk) 10:52, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
I realize you have a keen interest in how coverage is presented. You're starting with some basic inaccuracies. In your own words you say that mentioning the acceptance rate in the lede is a slippery slope and often or usually leads to promtionalism and boosterism. I question that as well as many of your practices. Summerdays1 (talk) 11:05, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
I am not going to "explain here each of [my] edits." Unlike you, I use help edit summaries. If you have a specific question about one of my edits, I'd be happy to help. You're also welcome to open or continue discussions in article Talk pages. ElKevbo (talk) 12:21, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
I have mentioned this exchange here. Grandpallama (talk) 15:12, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
I may have caused this by giving Summerdays01 advice to politely reach out and discuss edits they disagreed with, in the interest of seeking consensus. I did not intend for them to ask you to explain every edit you've made for years! Please accept my unreserved apology for any stress or frustration that came from this. StartGrammarTime (talk) 07:48, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 2 March 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:01, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Disestablishment categories

Is it too soon to add "disestablished in 2024" categories to college/university articles even if we know they are closing in 2024? University of Antelope Valley is kind of obvious right now because the state and RSes state it is closed and the school website says it will be open either until or starting March 11 for online courses only. But what about others like Cabrini University and College of Saint Rose where the date has been announced (end of school year in 2024) yet the school is still operating at the moment? I assume in those cases to wait until actual closure but Antelope Valley is kind of in this limbo state right now. wizzito | say hello! 01:34, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

We generally wait until something has happened before we add an article to a category. I think that this would be the governing policy. ElKevbo (talk) 12:17, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi ElKevbo,
Thanks for copying me on your call for other editors to reflect on the changes I have made. Hopefully you have been able to review the justifications for every one of the changes I made. As you have noted a lot of very negative material was added by someone on Dec. 25. I do not have a copy of the page before Dec. 25 ("Present University" section) and have no quantitative measures. But it seems reasonable to assume that much of the very negative content was inserted on that one day. Is it fair to ask why these major chances were not challenged at that time? Of course it was done on Christmas Day.
One of the changes I made today was to delete the statement that ESU was placed on the AAUP sanctions list. I checked the AAUP list and ESU is not there. I also provided the link to the AAUP list in my explanation. I would request that you consider that "lots of changes" by me do mean that they are not justified. For example, a discussion of the fees for people to play on the university's tennis courts and the poverty rate of Lyon County, Kansas do not seem relevant to a discussion of the "Present university." (FYI, the new president, who led the downsizing, played on the ESU tennis team when he was a student.)
And there is another negative inference about the new president coming from industry rather than a university background. While not the typical background for university presidents, I would note that there are some noteworthy universities that have appointed presidents coming from industry or government backgrounds. For example, in December 2023 Texas A&M appointed a retired military general. Similarly, David Boren, the former president of the University of Oklahoma was a former governor and U.S. senator.
The Pandemic had a tremendous negative effect, particularly on elementary and high school teachers. As is well-known, a great many of the students at ESU are education majors. Indeed, when I graduated, ESU was named Kansas State Teachers College. The turnover among schoolteachers has been tremendous due to many factors, one of which is low compensation. Understandably, fewer students have gravitated toward majors in education, which had a negative effect on the university's enrollment and budget. Thus, a causal factor for the downsizing may have been the declined in enrollments of education majors (200 fewer education majors) rather than bad intentions of the university's administrators.
So, it seems to me that the very negative material that was added to the description of the university was highly unfair and hurtful to people who care deeply about the university. One of the changes I made was to update the statement about ESU's endowment. It increased during the past few years by $20 million up to $100.7 million. Most likely many of these contributions probably came from schoolteachers, who are not very highly compensated.
Finally, if I might also ask you to consider the following point. Approximately 33 faculty and staff were downsized because of budgetary shortfalls. I am very sorry for their great disappointment. It is traumatic to anyone who goes through such an event.
Thank you for your consideration.
Fourmile45 Fourmile45 (talk) 02:21, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 March 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Stevens Institute of Technology, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Garcia.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:04, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Brown, Columbia , and Penn: Treated differently than Other Ivies.

i agree with your position in reverting important summary information about alumni and believe your reversion is encouraged by Wikipedia SOM as the high level accomplishments by Ivy alum faculty and trustees are part of reason they have succeeded. To have 5 of them have their Ledes and 3 of them not seems wrong. I wrote on Nikkimaria that I might support her IF all 8 schools Ledes were similarly deleted and they pushed back saying in essence it's ok to discriminate and not be uniform. I welcome your insight. OneMoreByte (talk) 07:12, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Saint Paul College

Re edits 4/2024 - much of the data you reverted back is not accurate to our public institutional research data as well as our general quick facts.

We know longer offer watchmaking and that has no source data. Austincalhoun (talk) 12:16, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome to post suggestions and requests in the article's Talk page! And most editors are fine with COI editors making edits that are indisputably uncontroversial e.g., updating outdated information, correcting typos. ElKevbo (talk) 12:36, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 April 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:48, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk page feedback

FYI: You posted on my talk page. Thank you! I responded. I was doing my best to be careful about following Wikipedia policy (but I'm far from an expert on such). If I made any errors, can you please let me know? If you were just posting so I'd be careful just in case, but I was within policy, can you please let me know as well?

I'm avoiding further edits (at least for now), but I think the edX page should have a heading similar to the Open edX one ("may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject, potentially preventing the article from being verifiable and neutral.") and perhaps a stronger one.

Pmitros (talk) 13:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

@Pmitros: I don't have any objections to the specific edits that you made - I just wanted to make sure you knew about our conflict of interest policies and practices.
Please feel free to post suggestions and requests in the Talk pages for articles about which you have a significant conflict of interest (and disclose your conflict of interest, too, so editors aren't caught off guard or unaware). ElKevbo (talk) 15:03, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Get your affairs in order

Your entire crime syndicate will be taken out. 74.49.143.204 (talk) 23:26, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Oberlin Group notability

Hi ElKevbo! I tried taking a spin through Oberlin Group of Libraries to improve it, and was surprised to find that I could not come up with any notability-qualifying sources. I'm guessing that some probably exist somewhere, given that it's referenced all the time among its members — would you be able to point me to any? Sdkb talk 17:00, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't have any expertise in libraries or library systems. But I would not be at all surprised if this group were not notable by our standards. There are many consortia and collaborations in US higher education that are real, meaningful, and substantive - but not notable. I would imagine that many of them simply don't have enough independent coverage to write substantive encyclopedia articles that meet our standards because their focus is purely on meeting the internal needs of their members and not publicizing their work or creating large amounts of information and activity that typically draws a lot of press or scholarly coverage. ElKevbo (talk) 11:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
If it turns out to not be notable, that would put us in an interesting spot, since most members of the Oberlin Group include that fact in their infobox. We also have the {{Oberlin Group}} navbox, which we'd probably still want to keep (are there any notability standards for navboxes?). Sdkb talk 22:35, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm very skeptical that a library group merits inclusion in the "affiliation" parameter of the infobox. The template documentation says that inclusions in that parameter should "provide essential definition of the institution's core mission and values" and it seems very unlikely that a library collaboration would meet that bar. The description for the "academic affiliation" is similar. ElKevbo (talk) 22:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Agreed — you and I previously discussed that here, which later led to the discussion here that implemented the documentation you're citing. And I left out the Oberlin Group from the infobox when I did my FA. But until someone does a large-scale run through university articles to remove it, it'll be advice that roughly 1% of our articles actually follow. Sdkb talk 23:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, I've done some trimming of many infoboxes to remove specific organizations from infoboxes but I've been selective about the organizations I've removed. Identifying other organizations to trim - or add - is not very high on my "to do" list. ElKevbo (talk) 00:58, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
I think centralizing the discussion around which consortia to include or exclude in infoboxes would be better centralized than dispersed over thousands of articles. Category:College and university associations and consortia in the United States has a pretty manageable 75 entries, so it would be feasible to list them all out on perhaps a subpage of WP:UNIGUIDE and come to a project consensus on which meet the defining bar. That'd then constitute a basis for making mass-scale edits that wouldn't require fighting for a consensus at every single article. Sdkb talk 01:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 May 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:57, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Hello, ElKevbo. You have new messages at Twillisjr's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Twillisjr (talk) 14:10, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I have made an edit, can you please explain how is this a link spam @ElKevbo Deependra.d (talk) 07:30, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

[1], a link you added to Online degree is not by any stretch of the imagination a reliable source. ElKevbo (talk) 14:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Disestablishment categories again

Currently having some troubles on Delaware College of Art and Design. Trying to reaffirm that the status quo on higher ed closures is to not add disestablishment categories until verified closure but this news hasn't hit Inside Higher Ed or Higher Ed Dive yet so I'm alone here. wizzito | say hello! 04:20, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

I'll open a discussion at WT:UNI. ElKevbo (talk) 15:02, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Tagging other users

Hey, I saw on your Higher Ed post you intended to tag the involved editors but linking to user pages, like User:RevelationDirect, doesn't send a notice. For next time, check out Template:Ping.

Happy editing! - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:43, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 8 June 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:25, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Eastern Nazarene College, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gordon College.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:29, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Reverted Edits to Fayetteville State University

Please offer an explanation as to why you decided to undo the appropriate corrections to capitalization of the terms "Black," "Historically Black University," and etc. 173.93.28.147 (talk) 21:08, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't have much objection to capitalizing "Black." But "Historically Black University" is not a proper noun and should not be capitalized. ElKevbo (talk) 21:24, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited University of Mount Saint Vincent, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New York.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:17, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 July 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:38, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Oldest universities

Sorry about misunderstanding why "ancient" was correct. Didn't look closely enough. YoPienso (talk) 18:42, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Sul Ross State University Lobos for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sul Ross State University Lobos is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sul Ross State University Lobos until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

JTtheOG (talk) 06:29, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

LeTourneau University SACS Warning Status

Hey,

I will adjust the article as you suggest to add the new information about warning removal to the old.

The problem is that the PDF you cited from SACS has been removed and so it is a dead link. I can't find any other reference to it (and the SACS page about the warning removal has no information about the causes of the warning). Not sure what the appropriate course of action would be. whitti (talk) 15:44, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I found an archived copy of the document and updated the article as noted in the article's Talk page. ElKevbo (talk) 21:59, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 July 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:30, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you! Thanks for your hard work.

The Education Barnstar
I know you are not a barnstar collector, but I wanted to say thanks for your work on higher education articles. You are a balanced, communicative, and detailed editor. I appreciate your willingness to discuss edits, fight against NPOV editors respectfully, and keep articles clean. Your work is appreciated! glman (talk) 13:20, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 21:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

arxiv

Hi. About your objection to having a link in the external link section. I have begun the thread on the matter at Talk:ArXiv#An_external_linTalk:ArXiv#An_external_link. Is it your view that the incident in question is too minor? I welcome your response. —- Taku (talk) 12:31, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for collapsing the distractions at RSN. That was frustrating to watch. VQuakr (talk) 18:05, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 August 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:47, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

NYU Grossman School of Medicine Milestones

Hello! I have been working on this page and the milestones section was previously quite extensive, but missing a lot of important information as well as lacking sources. You indicated with a template that the section was too long and needed cleanup. Would it be better to move this content to the History section and provide more of a prose?

Guidance appreciated :) Trench72CoatAnt (talk) 14:18, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

@Trench72CoatAnt: Yes, I think that section should be incorporated into the existing history section and rewritten as prose. It would likely make the section too long for the article so you'll have to decide if material should be cut or moved to a new, standalone article about the school's history. ElKevbo (talk) 19:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
That makes sense to me! There is some duplication I will remove and then where there is extended detail we can move to the History section.
Appreciate you :) Trench72CoatAnt (talk) 14:00, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Heterodox Academy

Hello, You recently deleted an addition of mine in the "Heterodox Academy" article, citing "UNDUE." Would you please elaborate on your reasons for the deletion? I'm not sure why the addition of a different point of view from Beauchamp's and Quintana's violates neutrality or gives undue weight to another opinion. If Friedman's opinion, propounded in the New York Times and citing Heterodox Academy's surveys, is out of bounds, then Beauchamp and Quintana's opinions should be deleted as well. Theirs is the only third-party opinion cited in the article, and their claim that there are no data to support Heterodox Academy's concern about censorship is baseless. There are, in fact, mountains of data on self-censorship in university settings, some of which Friedman cites. Free Speech Wikipedian (talk) 17:30, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I simply don't think a mention in an op ed merits inclusion in this encyclopedia article especially on a topic that has been and continues to be the subject of serious study published in peer-reviewed scholarly venues. If other similar material in the article should also be removed on those grounds then you are welcome to remove it. ElKevbo (talk) 21:20, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

COI Warning

Hello!

Thank you for informing me about the COI guidelines set in place to protect pages. I am employed by Brazosport College, but I can assure you that my edits were meant to be as objective as possible. If there is anything that can be done to include these edits, please let me know!

Thank you again for all you do,

Kallias Dornan KalliasDornan (talk) 20:42, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Many Wikipedia editors are generally okay if editors with a disclosed conflict of interest make clearly unobjectionable edits such as updating outdated information already in an article or correcting obvious typos. Substantive edits are generally frowned upon. But we welcome your suggestions and requests in the article's Talk page! ElKevbo (talk) 21:29, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 September 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:25, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi there. I know you are very good with university articles and academic BLPs. Would you mind looking at this editor. I see articles created about fairly non-notable professors and non-notable university programs. I already tagged this editor--who edits the same articles. I'd appreciate your opinion. Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 10:50, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

And here, so crestfallen by User:TooManyFingers good advice. Why so much drama? Magnolia677 (talk) 11:00, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
You're welcome to (politely!) ask them if they have a connection to a subject but I'm not seeing anything that is very concerning in their editing. I do plan to nominate Program in Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior, Michigan State University for deletion so we'll see how that goes. ElKevbo (talk) 14:41, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
Done. Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 17:45, 6 September 2024 (UTC)


Texas Colleges and Universities

Hi @ElKevbo - QQ: Why remove the bolding of the school names? This is the styling design I'm implementing which is used by other State listings (e.g. California).

Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TAMUH (talk • contribs) 20:21, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't align with how I understand our Manual of Style's section about bold typeface.
In articles about colleges and universities, previous names of an institution are often bolded the first time they appear in the article and to the best of my knowledge that should only be happening because those old names are redirects to the current article. That - bolding the target of a redirect - is one of the accepted uses of bold typeface. I confess that I rarely if ever check to see if those redirects actually exist - it's really low on my personal to-do list! :) ElKevbo (talk) 21:24, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
Understood RE: style manual. Thanks! TAMUH (talk) 21:42, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
Feel free to ask others - the Talk page of MOS:BOLD may be ideal. My understanding may be mistaken. ElKevbo (talk) 22:22, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 September 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:08, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Colby College library

Hello,

You have now removed my edit about the Olin Science Library being repurposed two times. The library has literally been non-existent for two years. There are no references saying that it no longer exists because nobody wrote about it. But given that I see it 5 days I week I can assure you that it is no longer there. The closest "reference" that I can find is the absence of it on the Colby Libraries page: https://libraries.colby.edu/about/ It is important that people know the library no longer exists, but what do you do in this case? 108.183.178.64 (talk) 03:14, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I think the typical approach is to simply remove it from the article. We can't say that it was closed and some other thing was added in its place without a source. But if it's no longer included in a source that's already referenced (or can be easily added) then we can just omit it. ElKevbo (talk) 10:22, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
Thanks @ElKevbo. That makes a good deal of sense, but I suppose that I also think that it's important for people searching for the library and people learning about the libraries to know that there was indeed a science library that used to exist, but it no longer does. It's relevant and informative history. If we just remove it, it's like the science library never existed. That means, for instance, when people read about the science library at Colby on the Olin Foundation Wiki (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F._W._Olin_Foundation), they will see that it existed, but then there is no mention of it on Colby's page. People will likely see references to the library elsewhere beyond Wiki and will notice the discrepancy of some places referring to it, but it being missing from Colby's Wiki.
I get your point about what it was repurposed into, but I still feel that it is relevant information since Colby has been all over all the news (e.g., NYT, NPR) about the AI and entrepreneurship initiatives. I don't have as strong as an argument for it, other than it is relevant information contemporarily for those learning about the college, but will likely be less relevant over time, like lots of other information that is on Wiki.
To those ends, I think I made a compelling argument to include that the science library used to exist and no longer does and what took the library's place. Thank you. 108.183.178.64 (talk) 17:15, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) How sure are you that no one wrote about the library being repurposed? I'm going to guess that if we dig deep enough, there's probably some announcement about it somewhere. Even if it's from a not-normally-reliable source such as a Facebook post from Colby's library account, under WP:ABOUTSELF we could use it. Sdkb talk 18:02, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
It's also worth thinking about "due weight". That's the idea that we are not obligated to write about everything even when it's documented in reliable sources. We still practice editorial discretion in figuring out what is appropriate for inclusion in encyclopedia article. In particular, if something is not included in reliable sources or only briefly mentioned in those sources then it probably isn't something we should include in an encyclopedia article.
This is our current, best advice about what we think should be included in most articles about colleges and universities and it might be helpful as you think about this particular topic. ElKevbo (talk) 22:23, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
I hope that you respond to my argument above rather than citing a general set of guidelines. The addition or removal of a significant college facility, like a library, written in a neutral point of view—like I suggested—do fit within these guidelines to me. 108.183.178.64 (talk) 22:39, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
Not without a reliable source. This is an encyclopedia article, not a publication of the college or a general guide about the college. ElKevbo (talk) 22:42, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
But even though there is no reliable source to say it is not there, you think it is acceptable to scrape the information off the page? It seems more appropriate and informative to say that it no longer exists than attempting to make its existence disappear when there are other webpages, articles, websites, and other information saying it exists. Do you know what I mean? I mean, the library literally does not exist and it is not in the preview of "reliable sources" to write about it: it's an objective fact. 108.183.178.64 (talk) 22:55, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
Yes, it's an awkward situation when something significant changes and the relevant organization makes no public announcement or acknowledgement. Other editors at WT:UNI or WT:RS may have better advice. ElKevbo (talk) 11:57, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Pretty certain. I live in the small town where Colby is located, I'm an employee of Colby, I was surprised that I never heard anything about in the regional news, Colby made the announcement at the end of the semester so the school paper didn't have time to write about it, and the few papers that cover the area returned nothing in a search. Also, it's not really "news" since it is a private institution and therefore doesn't ostensibly affect the public. 108.183.178.64 (talk) 22:36, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
How did they make the announcement? Sdkb talk 14:08, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

COI editing

Apologies but I think you'll need to explain to me why COI edit requests can be processed without a declaration of employer being made somewhere. WP:COI seems to be quite clear on this point, albeit that WP:DISCLOSE gives 3 alternative locations for the declaration to be made. Axad12 (talk) 12:34, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the request should have been more explicit, including a more explicit acknowledgement of the actual COI. However, I do think that they should be given some credit for having made the good-faith effort to make a COI request even if they didn't do it completely correctly especially since their requested edits were very straight forward and supported by sources.
I also think that maybe a more welcoming and appreciative approach may have been warranted in this situation given that they've already shown a willingness to engage with our policies and practices. Flies, honey, vinegar, and all that, right? ElKevbo (talk) 12:54, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure that I understand the final sentence of your response above, however I don't see what the problem was in waiting for a declaration to be made before implementing the user's request.
To be honest I think it shows a very odd set of priorities to quibble over the semantics of the word "should" and then to take action while completely ignoring the very obvious meanings of the words "must" and "required". Axad12 (talk) 12:59, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
I've now reverted the recent implementation of the COI edit request.
The background here is that the user had previously been making mainspace edits on a related article, and appears to have only made the recent COI edit request because the present page has a degree of protection.
So, it seems to me that a declaration of COI on the user's user page would be desirable to prevent them from falling inadvertently into UPE territory.
Hopefully this clarifies. Axad12 (talk) 13:40, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
I added the COI declaration o my profile; if I need to make changes to better comply with rules, please let me know. I really was not trying to do anything untoward; just trying to make the pages factually accurate. Appreciate external guidance on suggested edits that don't feel explicitly unbiased. Facereiusrei (talk) 15:04, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Many thanks for making the declaration, much appreciated. I shall re-implement the changes that were made earlier today. If memory serves there was some info outstanding re: some other elements of the request, which no doubt you will come back with in due course. Thanks again. Axad12 (talk) 15:17, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Freed-Hardeman University

Thanks for your feedback on the edit! I wanted to share why I think it should stay.

The letter from the university clearly states its beliefs and values, which is important for understanding its conservative stance. Plus, being a Church of Christ university, I think that alone should indicate its ideological position.

I get that firsthand sources can sometimes be viewed as biased, so I'm also looking for additional sources that touch on this. If you have any suggestions, I’d love to hear them!

Thanks for considering my points! Jdawg8677 (talk) 02:54, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Take a look at how this is handled at Hillsdale College - that college is explicitly labeled as "conservative" in the lede and there has been a lot of discussion in the article's Talk page and edit history over that label. In general, editors usually insist on really high quality sources for that kind of label in the lede sentence of an article. ElKevbo (talk) 10:24, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
Interesting. So editors would prefer journalists to define conservatism rather than the school itself.
I appreciate the insight. Thank you. Jdawg8677 (talk) 15:50, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
We don't prefer journalists - we prefer reliable sources that are independent from the subject of an article. That often includes (good) journalists but it also includes scholars and other experts. The opinion or preferred description of a subject has some weight in some instances but we're also very aware that those can sometimes be self-serving, inaccurate, or outright wrong. So we generally prefer to rely on others who we hope are independent and perhaps more objective; ideally there are multiple such sources. ElKevbo (talk) 22:19, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
I get the concern about an institution's own statements being self-serving, but their Title IX exemption application is important because it comes from the Department of Education. It reflects a legally binding official position that underscores the university's commitment to conservative values. The Church of Christ affiliation also plays a key role in defining the institution's stance, particularly on social issues like gender roles and LGBTQ+ rights, and the Title IX exemption just reinforces this. If you don't see a Title IX exemption as aligning with American ideological conservatism, I think we might have a bit of a political disconnect here. If it helps, I could also cite the legal document that grants their exemption. Jdawg8677 (talk) 06:30, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
I agree with your interpretation. But we don't add labels to Wikipedia articles based on the viewpoints of individual editors nor do we engage in our interpretation and synthesis of facts to draw conclusions - we rely on reliable sources. I know that can sometimes be frustrating but ultimately it's a sound practice that keeps the encyclopedia from becoming mired on disagreement and conflict as editors use it to express their own beliefs and practices regardless of others'. ElKevbo (talk) 12:06, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
I want to clarify that this is not a matter of synthesis or personal opinion. The Title IX exemption is a legally binding public record filed with the Department of Education, reflecting the university’s stance on key social issues like gender roles and LGBTQ+ rights. This exemption is not just an internal statement, nor is it an 'interpretation,' but a formal document with legal consequences that aligns itself with defining conservative values. Jdawg8677 (talk) 16:50, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
I am sure that most other Wikipedia editors would agree with me that an editor using a primary source to label a subject is indeed original research. But you're welcome to ask others for their opinions - WT:UNI or WP:ORN may be good places to seek additional opinions and advice. ElKevbo (talk) 21:56, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. 67.213.210.16 (talk) 12:25, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ElKevbo/Archive_30&oldid=1250455449"