Wikipedia

User talk:ElKevbo/Archive 31

< User talk:ElKevbo
Latest comment: 11 months ago by ElKevbo in topic Ave Maria School of Law Wiki Page
Archive 25←Archive 29Archive 30Archive 31Archive 32

Quick 2 questions

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Hi @ElKevbo,

Hope you're doing well. I've been looking at a few university articles and I realized that I may have missed a few conversations. I was hoping you might be able to help me with some possible answers.

  1. I remember at one point "established in" was preferred to "Founded in". I know seem to be seeing more of the latter. Was this discussed somewhere? I have no preference; I just found this interesting.
  2. For the universities which have pictures of some of their notable alumni/faculty, I've seen 1-2 editors claim that this section should be limited to no more than 2 rows but this doesn't seem to be consistent. Was there consensus for how many rows this should be?

Wozal (talk) 00:00, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't recall any explicit discussion of those two things.
  1. I don't think I've ever seen substantive discussion of "established" versus "founded." One could argue that the language used in the infobox parameter - "established" - is an indication of at least a weak consensus. On the other hand, only "founder" and "founding" are used in the current advice for college and university articles; "establish" isn't mentioned at all. I suspect that good arguments could be made that the words are not perfect synonyms and that each one is appropriate in some circumstances where the other isn't. So developing a consensus that one must be used and the other cannot be used seems unlikely. But developing a consensus on the different meanings that the words and the kinds of situations in which one or both are appropriate may be feasible and productive.
  2. I don't know of any consensus that a particular number of images or rows of images dilineates a difference between "appropriate selection of examples" and "inappropriate gallery of images." "Rows" is not likely a useful indicator as that will vary depending on each reader's device (screen size, resolution, window width, etc.). My reading of the current image use policy is that collections (i.e., galleries) of images are strongly discouraged in favor of selective and tasteful placement of images near relevant text.
Sorry I don't have specific answers! ElKevbo (talk) 01:26, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) For (1), I concur with ElKevbo. For (2), my understanding is that such galleries are discouraged. One picture for the section is plenty for purposes of visual illustration. Beyond that, it's almost never the case that individual alumni are so important to a college (which will have thousands of them, in addition to many other facets to discuss) as to be due for anything more than a list entry. Sdkb talk 04:52, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Southern New Hampshire University wordmark and logo.png

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
⚠
⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:05, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Stony Brook University Notable Faculty Section

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Why was Gregg Smith removed from the Notable Faculty section? I graduated Stony Brook in 1971 and was a member of that school’s chorus led by Gregg Smith. He was on the faculty and he was notable (see Gregg Smith Singers) Raaronson (talk) 10:12, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

We usually limit entries in "Notable _" lists to subjects who have Wikipedia articles. Unless I'm mistaken, we don't have an article for Gregg Smith. ElKevbo (talk) 23:59, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Question About Recent Edits to University Ledes

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi ElKevbo,

I trust your judgment on matters related to higher education articles, so I wanted to get your take on some recent edits made by a user (EC2say) regarding the ledes of several well-known universities (including Stanford, Caltech, and MIT) while ignoring others (Harvard, Columbia, UChicago). Here are the relevant diffs:

The user removed content from the ledes, citing that such statements do not comply with Wikipedia. Specifically, it seems like they are trying to limit mentions of the universities’ influence on modern disciplines, which could be seen as reducing the "prestige" tone in these articles. I'll admit, the ledes are cleaner, but I'm not sure the removal of the influence of these universities on areas of modern life and academia are justified.

Do you think these changes were warranted, either partially or fully? I’m interested in hearing your perspective on whether these edits align with Wikipedia’s guidelines and how we should approach similar edits in the future.

Best regards,

BorderlineRebel (talk) 16:05, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

One could uncharitably interpret these edits as deliberately disruptive. It seems to be more productive to view them in a larger context that suggests that we need to hold a project-wide discussion about the inclusion of counts of alumni in the lede of articles about colleges and universities. A discussion at WT:UNI certainly seems to be in order, perhaps in preparation for an RFC. ElKevbo (talk) 01:06, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
I agree. Some consensus would be helpful. I'll open a discussion, and your input would be valuable.
Thanks!
BorderlineRebel (talk) 15:18, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 October 2024

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  • In the media: Off to the races! Wikipedia wins!
    Perplexing persistence, pay to play, potential president's possible plagiarism, crossword crossover to culture, and a wish come true!
  • Book review: The Editors
    A novel about us, from the point of view of three of us.

Discouraged vs Encouraged

Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, while it is true that COI editors are only "strongly discouraged" from making direct edits, I'm not sure it is very useful at COIN to essentially encourage a clearly very opinionated admitted COI user in a way that they will surely interpret as "it is not prohibited". As you know, the areas under discussion are infested with many extreme COI/PROMO editors as it is, without inviting another one to join those ranks. Axad12 (talk) 18:22, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome to propose that the policy be changed. But it's not ethical to tell editors that it says something that it doesn't say. ElKevbo (talk) 18:54, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
It was an honest oversight on my part, I'd previously acknowledged "strongly discouraged" earlier in the same thread. Your suggestion that I've behaved in an unethical way, meanwhile, is an obvious breach of WP:AGF and a personal attack which I suggest that you retract. Axad12 (talk) 19:03, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
Just a thought here...
A few weeks ago, you and I had a minor disagreement on a semantics/procedural issue on a COI edit request.
The following day a user appeared at COIN and started a thread about you , pinging me at the end of the initial post. The user had obviously seen our disagreement on your talk page and at the COI edit request and had hoped that I'd turn up to support them.
Instead I was there within an hour of the original post, speaking very strongly on your behalf and saying the thread was completely without merit.
That isn't what an unethical user looks like. So cut me some slack, eh? Whatever minor disagreements we may have I'm sure we both know that ultimately we're on the same side. Axad12 (talk) 21:10, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Russ College

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Greetings! Proposing to merge Academic and Research Center (Ohio University) with Ohio University Russ College of Engineering and Technology, as the ARC Building is part of the Russ College. What are your views on this merge? See Talk page of Ohio University.Sapienna (talk) 10:30, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

8888 2001:44C8:457E:B50D:3D32:2FC2:919A:FFCE (talk) 16:29, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 November 2024

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Education Reform

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 18 November 2024

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Hillsdale College seal.jpg

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Hillsdale 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. --B-bot (talk) 18:22, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Wordmark of Ozark Christian College (2023).png

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Wordmark of Ozark Christian College (2023).png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:50, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Texas Tech University

Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hi @ElKevbo. I see we've both been working on updating the Texas Tech University page recently. I wanted to see if there's a reason you removed all of my edits to it and what your concerns were. Glenysyoung87 (talk) 03:26, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Have you looked at the article's revision history? I was careful to use edit summaries to explain my thinking when I removed or edited each section. ElKevbo (talk) 14:37, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
I have; your last comment was "rv undiscussed, problematic additions - please open a discussion in Talk". What did you consider problematic additions? I ask because I work at Texas Tech University and have been tasked with getting our Wikipedia pages updated to accurately reflect our current university priorities. If there is something I'm doing wrong that is flagging these changes, I would very much like to know that so I can do my job while respecting the boundaries of the Wiki community. Thank you. Glenysyoung87 (talk) 23:25, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
Please read the edit summaries for each of my previous edits. ElKevbo (talk) 23:56, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Recent edits to Tufts University

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi @ElKevbo I invite you to actually look at the sources for the endowment, which does not misstate it. Furthermore, Mr. Cummings is the namesake of the graduate veterinarian school and the new largest building on the undergraduate campus. He has signed The Giving Pledge and is worth billions, which I think constitutes success in business. Happy Thanksgiving. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14F:4500:D4D0:5D27:9351:DB61:3110 (talk) 21:56, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. "Net assets" is not the same as an endowment. In fact, the source you cited explicitly says "the endowment grew to over $2.4 billion." And you're welcome to create an article about Cummings and then we can consider if he should be added to the article. ElKevbo (talk) 22:19, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Stephens College

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi there. An editor recently added a section to Stephens College regarding "student outcomes"...how much $$$ their grads are making. I looked at WP:UNIGUIDE and didn't see anything about this. Seems kinda boosterism-ish. Can I get your opinion? Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 14:34, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

It's well sourced and pertinent information. We can't remove information just because it's not in WP:UNIGUIDE. But it also lacks nuance and context which is critical for that kind of information, especially when it's presented for an entire institution with many programs because there is usually tremendous variation in the data between graduates with different degrees. ElKevbo (talk) 14:43, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 December 2024

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  • Op-ed: On the backrooms
    An editor's reflection on social capital and their changing relationship with Wikipedia culture. by Tamzin

Ohio University Russ College + ARC Building

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Would you kindly merge the articles please? Haven't had time to discover how; appreciate your help! Sapienna (talk) 20:06, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Ursuline College

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi @ElKevbo! I was wondering if it would be possible to restore the additions recently made to the Ursuline College page regarding their ranking by U.S. News and World Report. Other Ohio universities' pages use extremely similar wording, like under the Academics and Rankings section of Bowling Green State University. Let me know your thoughts, and thanks so much for your help! I am new to editing articles so still learning the ropes! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tay.sauer (talk • contribs) 10:25, December 16, 2024 (UTC)

I have no objection to including relevant, up-to-date rankings in the article. But they should be described in neutral language and with accuracy, including the year of the ranking.
And I strongly recommend that you restrict most or all of your editing about Ursuline to the article's Talk page given your employment and your specific role at the college. ElKevbo (talk) 15:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Will do, thank you so much for letting me know! Tay.sauer Tay.sauer (talk) 15:44, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

USNA DGA

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Not sure what you have against USNA distinguished graduates. "Unnecessary detail" isn't a reason for deletion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Content_removal#Reasons_for_content_removal — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomhubbard (talk • contribs) 00:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

You may find it helpful to review our general policy on what Wikipedia is not and our specific guidance on what we typically include in articles about colleges and universities. In general, we try to aim for articles that cover the most important information about an institution without delving into a lot of detail about any particular aspect unless that detail is critical e.g., precise size of endowment, year of founding, number of students enrolled. A detailed listing of alumni who receive a particular award from the institution doesn't seem to be the kind of critical information we should include in an encyclopedia article.
You're welcome to open a discussion in the article's Talk page to see if other editors have different opinions! ElKevbo (talk) 02:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 December 2024

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Lower columbia college

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Why did you delete my addition to this article. I go to this college and think its inappropriate for you to delete it. Schwajar000 (talk) 23:49, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I removed much of it because it was overly detailed and promotional.
You're welcome to open a discussion in the article's Talk page or ask for input at WT:UNI if you'd like opinions from other editors! ElKevbo (talk) 00:04, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

hello

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Unfortunately those edits I rolled back were not constructive. The mobile user at issue has a long history of overlinking, adding unnecessary year ranges, etc. — and does not respond to messages. They have been banned multiple times for this: Special:Contributions/2601:14D:4B80:1950:0:0:0:0/64 173.175.200.238 (talk) 22:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I encourage you to include some of that information in your edit summaries or to open discussions in Talk. And be careful that your reversions don't also revert other edits that are unrelated to those you intend to revert. ElKevbo (talk) 23:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Johns Hopkins University article notable alumni

Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, I just noticed the flag you left about excessive use of images. I'm a little confused because I based my addition off existing articles about universities (see Harvard or Yale) that utilize the same type of gallery for notable alumni, with even more images (Harvard article uses 30 images, Yale uses 28), but none of those have been flagged for the same issue. Are those not flagged because you didn't notice, or is there something particular about my edits? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by BourgeoisPanda (talk • contribs) 03:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the question. I simply haven't noticed that those other articles have too many photos; there's nothing particular about your edits. ElKevbo (talk) 13:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. Can you suggest some edits or changes I should make? I'm not exactly sure what constitutes "excessive" or "unencyclopedic" use of images. Might I also suggest flagging the other articles with the same issue so that they can be fixed as well. BourgeoisPanda (talk) 00:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
I recommend collaborating with other editors to determine the 8-10 alumni whose photos should be included and limiting the image gallery to those people with a hidden note for editors pointing them to the Talk page discussion so more images aren't added without awareness of the discussion that has already taken place.
And I'm happy to flag other excessively large image galleries as a I see them. I'm not going to search for them specifically - that's not how I'd like to spend my free time volunteering in this project - but I'll note them when I spot them. ElKevbo (talk) 17:30, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 January 2025

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Why ask to delete the Robert Cherry Award Page

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Why are you asking for the page to be deleted just because your edits were reverted. You had no reason to remove a large section of the page. Now removing the page is highly misguided! No wonder I neither donate or contribute to Wikipedia. Be kind! 2607:FE50:0:6100:606A:9A98:7FCE:4BE1 (talk) 20:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

My nomination for deletion has little to do with the recent editing history at the article. What the recent edits led me to do is look into the award and the reliable sources that describe it - that showed me that there simply isn't sufficient, substantive coverage in reliable sources to justify an article. If the article is deleted and more sources are published in the future, the article can certainly be created at that time. ElKevbo (talk) 01:34, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Discussion regarding the Academic background divider in Template:Infobox academic

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

ElKevbo, you might be interested in a discussion currently ongoing at Template talk:Infobox academic about the possibility of reformatting the template without the Academic background divider. GuardianH (talk) 23:05, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

The Signpost: 7 February 2025

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  • News and notes: Let's talk!
    The WMF executive team delivers a new update; plus, the latest EU policy report, good-bye to the German Wikipedia's Café, and other news from the Wikimedia world.
  • Community view: 24th Wikipedia Day in New York City
    Wikimedians and newbies celebrate 24 years of Wikipedia in the Brooklyn Central Library. Special guests Stephen Harrison and Clay Shirky joined in conversation.
  • Traffic report: A wild drive
    The start of the year was filled with a few unfortunate losses, tragic disasters, emerging tech forces and A LOT of politics.

College of wooster edits

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

@ElKevbo wanted to see logic behind restoring edits to the notable alumni main page? Trying to make that page more accurate with the most relevant/notable alumni. Some of the ones listed there are little known or IMHO haven't had significant enough accomplishments to be on the selected alumni grouping. They are still listed on the notable people linked page.

New to editing so happy to hear any feedback/reasoning. FScot66 (talk) 16:08, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Both of those people (a) are notable by Wikipedia standards as they have their own standalone articles and (b) appear to be genuinely related to the college. In the absence of a clear consensus among editors about what criteria are being used to determine which notable people are included in the article and which notable people are excluded, it seems reasonable to err on the side of inclusion. I am especially worried that some editors might want to exclude some notable alumni simply because they believe that those alumni paint the college in a negative light; that, of course, is not an acceptable reason to make any edits in Wikipedia.
You are welcome to open a discussion in the article's Talk page to get input from other editors! You are also welcome to examine those specific articles and nominate one or both of them for deletion if you think that the subjects are not notable. ElKevbo (talk) 22:24, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

William & Mary

Latest comment: 1 year ago9 comments3 people in discussion

I'm curious why edits intended to make accurate the terminology used to refer to William & Mary were labeled as "historical revisionism?" In my edit, I kept all references to "the college" when the term was used to refer to William & Mary prior to the establishing of its graduate programs (when it was, in fact, a college) and only changed references to "the college" when the term was used to refer to William & Mary after the establishment of its graduate programs; the establishment of graduate programs made it a university. The Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education classifies William & Mary as a Doctoral University.

Too, William & Mary's official style guide lists "the university" as its preferred second reference, and "the university" is used by such reputable publications as The New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/10/us/virginia-legacy-admissions-public-colleges-universities.html, https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/30/us/virginia-legacy-college-admissions.html) and The Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2024/07/24/william-mary-coastal-marine-sciences/) as a second reference when discussing William & Mary. Jibunno (talk) 01:20, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

@Jibunno: At the time, W&M wasn't a university. I just wrote an article that discusses this in some more detail, but the first bachelor degrees weren't awarded by the college until 1772. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:42, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
I only reverted references to "the college" when "the college" was used to refer to William & Mary after the establishment of graduate programs, which, by William & Mary's own admission, made it a university. Jibunno (talk) 01:44, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
@Jibunno: You conflated the Henrico College effort with William & Mary and referred to it as a university in contexts including the 17th century. In any case, it's still "the college" in many other reliable sources up to the present. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:50, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
It's unclear what "conflate" means here—I can only see that I replaced "the college" with "William & Mary", not that I replaced "the college" with "the university"—but such individual errors could be corrected without the reversion of all edits.
As for the reliable sources which still use "the college" to refer to William & Mary, I would be interested in seeing these. I know the New York Times and Washington Post use without deviation "the university" on second reference, and am curious to see sources of commensurate reputability use "the college." Jibunno (talk) 01:59, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
Your edit explicitly changed the article to say things like "The university educated American Presidents..." and "George Washington received his surveyor's license from the university in 1749..." There is nothing wrong at all with referring to the institution as a college in historical contexts when the institution was unmistakably a college and not a university. ElKevbo (talk) 02:30, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
I see. I appreciate your pointing this out and will avoid such errors in the future. As for references to William & Mary after its becoming a university: do you see any issues with this? Jibunno (talk) 02:33, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
Maybe - I'd have to see the specific context. Personally, I've often used "institution" in situations where "college" or "university" might be confusing for readers especially in situations like this one where the institution's name differs from its classification. ElKevbo (talk) 04:24, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
Ooo, I'm going to use that solution for an article that'll have exactly that problem. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:56, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Eight Schools Association notability

Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Hello, I'm curious about whether the Eight Schools Association page meets the AfD criteria but I wanted to consult with someone else before potentially initiating an AfD. The member schools are highly notable, but I don't think there is a single outside source in the article supporting the association's notability and based on the article itself it looks like the ESA's organized efforts petered out around 2010. The one thing I can find on Google News is that in 2015, the Associated Press called the ESA a prep school equivalent of the Ivy League, which a number of other sources then incorporated. See AP in the Guardian (CBS has a dupe, NYDN has a dupe, Business Insider attributes this to the AP). Will you let me know what you think? Namelessposter (talk) 01:31, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm not seeing very much, either. There are some mentions in academic sources included in Google Scholar but they appear to be passing mentions and not the kind of substantive material we need for an article.
Good luck! ElKevbo (talk) 03:59, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
Hmm. I'm not sure I'm the right person to initiate this since I edit the ESA member schools' pages ... not infrequently. I will leave a notability maintenance tag on the page and see if someone a little more removed is willing to initiate. Namelessposter (talk) 04:13, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
Opened a request for assistance at Talk:Eight Schools Association/Archive#Notability tag. Thanks for confirming that there's something to this. Namelessposter (talk) 04:23, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
FYI, I ended up deciding to do it myself since nobody answered the notability tag. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eight Schools Association. Namelessposter (talk) 18:54, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

please do not remove any content without a reasonable rationale

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

you just removed content from Prescott College entry that was requested to be left alone, was from a referenced source, had no issues, and you raised no issues...giving zero rationale for your removal. that is inappropriate. 2605:59C8:537D:7B10:6C62:E375:6B03:926B (talk) 23:01, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

This is a collaborative project. Please open a discussion in the article's Talk page as multiple editors have independently objected to the material you added. ElKevbo (talk) 23:52, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 February 2025

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  • Technology report: Hear that? The wikis go silent twice a year
    From patrolling new edits to uploading photos or joining a campaign, you can count on the Wikimedia platform to be up and running — in your language, anywhere in the world. That is, except for a couple of minutes during the equinoctes.
  • Opinion: Sennecaster's RfA debriefing
    User Sennecaster shares her thoughts on her recent RfA and the aspects that might have played a role in making it successful.

Muhlenberg College

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Your removed two of the three points in the "In popular culture" section with a cursory statement that they told the reader nothing about the college. A page's "In popular culture" section by definition doesn't necessarily tell the reader about the page's topic, instead it is an indication of the topic's influence in the wider culture. The reference to the Frank Zappa recording is in keeping with the types of things typically mentioned in such "In popular culture" sections. It is a claim to fame of a small academic institution and should not have been removed.

But even if it were necessary for content to tell the reader about the topic of the page, that criterion would have been met with the reference to the Zero Day series. Not just any college was selected for the reference as the common alma mater of two of the characters. Muhlenberg was selected because it is a small liberal arts college with a center-left bent like the characters. It has a history rooted in Christian faith, which is important because the characters believed they are acting in keeping with their moral compass. Per the series, Muhlenberg is the kind of sheltered academic setting where ideas are explored and the character, veteran Erik Hayes, could heal from the trauma endured from multiple tours of duty in war zones. That reference to Muhlenberg College actually told the reader a lot about the school. It should not have been removed. IndigoSalisbury (talk) 21:23, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

We're not here to document "claims to fame" for any subject. Our current guidance for the contents of college and university articles says this about "popular culture" sections: "If there are numerous reliable sources that discuss the institution's influence on popular culture then it may be appropriate to have a brief section describing that influence and offering well-known, pertinent examples. Such a section should not be an indiscriminate list of instances where the college or university is mentioned (in movies, books, television shows, etc.) nor should the section offer examples and discussion selected only by Wikipedia editors."
Do you have any reliable sources that describe the relationship between the Zero Day series and the college? ElKevbo (talk) 21:30, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 March 2025

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  • From the editor: Hanami
    It's an ecstasy, my spring.
  • Obituary: Rest in peace
    Send not to know
    For whom the bell tolls,
    It tolls for thee.

Image recently added to and removed from Harvard Law School

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello. My edit was my private image and helpful to Harvard law school. Keshavarz Mohammad Javad (talk) 19:29, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree that the image is helpful to readers of that article. You are welcome to open a discussion in the article's Talk page to see what other editors think and get further feedback. ElKevbo (talk) 23:01, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Cedar Crest College

Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Hello,

You recently undid changes to the Wikipedia article on Cedar Crest College. In your explanation, you admitted that the article was too detailed, so I am wondering why you reverted to the "too detailed" version?

Of note: You undid an update to their current enrollment numbers which included a valid citation; you re-entered the sentence, "The campus includes buildings containing libraries, classrooms, administrative offices, pools, theaters, fitness studios, and dining halls." The campus includes buildings...that seems an obvious candidate for a cleanup; you reinstated a 25-year history of a softball field that was built in 2024.

I'm willing to admit that I may have had a heavy hand in my edits if you can agree that this article was poorly written and needs to be reassessed.

My most pressing concern is the reliance on old enrollment information in your revision - my update to this was is cited and should be fixed. Potential students and faculty should be able to look to Wikipedia for the most recently collected and submitted information. (Your revision falsely increased actual enrollment by 5.74% and undergraduate enrollment by 7%)

Appreciate all you do, and hopefully some of which you undo. ;-) 23.28.12.65 (talk) 02:35, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the question. Your edit said that you "[r]emoved marketing materials not appropriate for an encyclopedia and updated enrollment numbers." I do not agree that the material was "marketing materials." And without a source it's impossible to know if the enrollment numbers you provided are correct. ElKevbo (talk) 02:41, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
Please see my edit - it did include a citation from USNews, a reliable source of self-reported information from the college - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cedar_Crest_College&oldid=1282616922
And, I agree, I was being flippant on the overly flowery descriptions, but having read through the guidance on articles on colleges and universities, I cede that this (poorly written) description of the college is within the guidelines. The enrollment numbers, however, are sourced and more recent and should be fixed. 23.28.12.65 (talk) 02:48, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
Ah, I see that reference now - you included it in the lede paragraph. But you didn't include in the infoxbox which is where I was looking. I'll update the article and include a reference in both places.
You're welcome to edit the article, too! I recommend not making massive, article-spanning edits but editing sections one-at-a-time with clear edit summaries. That makes it easier for other editors to understand what you've done and why you've done it. ElKevbo (talk) 02:52, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
I appreciate your guidance and advice - you know a lot more about this than I do. I am but a simple man editing articles on IP and without an account. The culture of expectations is unknown to me. 23.28.12.65 (talk) 02:54, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
And, for what it's worth, the only source in the college history is a literal marketing pamphlet for the college, thus, marketing materials. 23.28.12.65 (talk) 02:52, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Academy of Vocal Arts Article

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Good day sir, I noticed you reverted the article on Academy of Vocal Arts, saying it's clearly promotional and unsourced.

To better my contribution on Wikipedia, can you tell me why you thought the editing violates WP's guideline, and why you thought it's promotional?

Also, if I expand or bring outdated article to live, is it must that I should source?

Will gladly wait for your response Petermach (talk) 06:10, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

The material that I removed was completely unsourced and much of it was clearly promotional (e.g., "They work hard with good teachers through instruction, coaching, and performance opportunities" and "In 2024, AVA celebrated its 90th anniversary with a series of events and performances, highlighting its enduring commitment to operatic excellence."). I strongly recommend reviewing WP:NPOV and providing reliable sources that support material if you edit the article again in the future. If you need help, please ask! ElKevbo (talk) 02:45, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
Thanks a lot sir, I really do appreciate your correction, support and guide.
Thanks also for the links, it really does help answer most of my questions.
I hope I can reach out anytime if I needed more clarity on anything I am confused about 🙏 Petermach (talk) 06:48, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Columbia College (Missouri) Athletics

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I was WORKING on that part of the page! I LIVE in Columbia and was trying to update the page. Please reverse your edits! Mizzoufan1 (talk) 02:16, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

If you're going to add references, you're welcome to use the article's history to revert to an older version and begin work from there. ElKevbo (talk) 02:21, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
Almost all things I would reference is on the CC athletics website Mizzoufan1 (talk) 02:33, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

The Signpost: 9 April 2025

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

University metrics

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Remind me, have we met? Have we talked?

I was looking at your questions about universities. I am interested in university profiling. These could be answered for any arbitrary university using d:Wikidata:Listeria, by setting up the queries once and changing the Wikidata item for a university in a table. Have you done that, considered that?

This weekend is a Scholia hackathon ongoing. I am engaged in meta:Wikidata:Scholia/Events/Hackathon April 2025, which is more on the development side but also which generates a lot of answers to questions you ask.

Because of the d:Wikidata:SPARQL query service/WDQS graph split mostly everything is broken starting this week, but here is a profile of University of Notre Dame. Last week all the panels loaded concurrently; this week any that do not work can be clicked to run individually.

If you remain engaged in university profiling then perhaps we could talk. I would like to build out d:Wikidata:WikiProject Higher education sometime this year to make that easier. Bluerasberry (talk) 19:49, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't know nearly enough about Wikidata to answer any of your questions! I am wary of its complexity and unfamiliarity but I'd appreciate pointers to good resources and examples to begin to cure my ignorance. ElKevbo (talk) 22:12, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Waldorf University

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I notice you have been reverting IPs who are trying to change the nonprofit status of Waldorf University. The recent occurrences might be because the university announced that the Dept. of Ed. approved their change in status. Maybe this isn't on IPEDS yet b/c of the new administration and their cuts @ the department? wizzito | say hello! 23:17, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

It's very possible. I don't know how often IPEDS or College Navigator's view of IPEDS data is updated when the Department of Education is fully staffed much less how often it's being updated now or if it's being maintained at all. ElKevbo (talk) 22:15, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

University of Kansas notable alumni section

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I created the original image gallery of notable alumni on this page, and I maintain it is appropriate to have (Harvard's page has one, I figure it's good enough for KU). However, when I created it, it was tastefully and specifically limited to two rows of the most nationally- and internationally-notable/famous alumni and faculty of the university with intentionally brief captions.

I did not realize someone else had come along and added way more entries while revising my captions and adding others that are far too wordy. I agree there should not be a massive gallery, but there should be one. I assume we agree here. I unintentionally reverted to a bad version of the gallery and accidentally published before I could type in my edit explanation - apologies! I hope this clears up my position. Kurtwfan13 (talk) 23:06, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't inherently object to a small gallery of carefully selected images that broadly represent the range of alumni associated with the university. My objections are to (a) excessively large galleries and (b) galleries with no apparent selection criteria. 01:30, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Dr. Angela C. Meyers(Modern Polymathy studies)

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello ElKevbo,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Dr. Angela C. Meyers(Modern Polymathy studies) for deletion, because it's a redirect from an article title to a namespace that's not for articles.

If you don't want Dr. Angela C. Meyers(Modern Polymathy studies) to be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

SunloungerFrog (talk) 06:01, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Georgia Tech Pop Culture Section

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I agree with your suggestion to delete the list of movie appearances added to the Georgia Tech article by an unregistered editor. Are you working on rewriting that section, or know any sources that might help in rewriting it to be less promotional? If not, it seems appropriate to simply delete the section. Is a wider consensus required for that? ElToAn123 (talk) 23:01, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

I am not planning to rewrite that section and do not personally know of any helpful sources. You are welcome to edit the article as you believe is appropriate and helpful. ElKevbo (talk) 23:12, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 May 2025

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  • Traffic report: Of Wolf and Man
    Television dramas, televised sports, film, the Pope, and ... bioengineering at the top of the list?

Waldorf University

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I did add a topic once notifying you that we have been declared a non-profit by the DOE and I offered to send you the letter from the DOE as proof. I do not know why IPEDS or the DOE have not updated their databases yet, but we have official documentation to prove our status. If you would like to see it so you can stop changing our page, please contact me and I will be happy to send you a copy of the letter. Thank you. WaldorfUniversity1903 (talk) 15:49, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

I sent ElKevbo a message a few weeks ago asking if it was possible that the lack of updates on IPEDS is due to the Trump administration's cuts at the department, and he said it was possible. Yet he keeps edit warring with users on the page. I think we should make an exception for this odd situation, especially since the univ. confirms that they are non-profit officially now. wizzito | say hello! 20:17, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
wizzito, I am perfectly fine if you want to take responsibility for this kind of edit to the article. Please note that the current version of the article is pretty sloppy and needs to be cleaned up - we usually don't explicitly say that an institution is "non-profit" or "not-for-profit" in the infobox or lede sentence as that is so common that it's not worth pointing out. ElKevbo (talk) 22:57, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Lawrence Technological University

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

My edit regarding the antisemitic incident on campus and the school's response was removed. I agree with the general feedback that "a dispute between college roommates doesn't typically rise to the level of inclusion in an encyclopedia article..." However, this was not a routine dispute, and the focus of the edit was on the school's failed response.

If this had been a typical incident, the school likely would not have issued a formal press release, let alone distributed it widely through a wire service. The fact that the school chose to publicly acknowledge the incident and release an official statement via a third-party distribution platform strongly suggests that even the school considered the matter significant and unusual.

Additionally, I disagree with characterizing an antisemitic incident that led to a criminal trial and conviction as merely a "dispute between students," even if those students were roommates. Omitting the school’s failed response to such an incident (especially one it addressed publicly) risks undermining the neutrality and completeness of the article. Izidore10 (talk) 23:06, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough. But be careful to keep any such addition neutral and aligned with reliable sources. ElKevbo (talk) 22:58, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

University of North Texas

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I wanted to follow up on your recent edit tagging the UNT Fact Books citation with "failed verification." That seemed a bit disproportionate, especially since the citation points directly to UNT’s own archived Fact Books — a publicly accessible, institutionally maintained source. I had just repaired a broken { {Sfn} } link and matched it to the citation format to help the reference system function properly.

What stood out to me was your use of the phrase "hand wave" in the 'Edit summary'. That felt somewhat dismissive – vague, imprecise, and, tonally, anti-collaborative – particularly when paired with the strong "failed verification" tag. I am mindful that the Fact Books are primary references. But they are published by a scholarly institution that, among other things, answers to State audits and peer review. Those books, quite possibly, are the most reliable references available. Newspapers, peer-review journals, and government agencies who publish similar data likely get the data from the Fact Books. Those books are part of the University's official documentation for historical data like institutional names, enrollment, and academic structure. That seems squarely within the bounds of appropriate use for a primary source.

Also, just to clarify: using a primary source doesn't constitute a failed verification under Wikipedia policy — unless the claim is not actually supported by the source. If the concern is that a secondary source would be stronger, then I enthusiastically will/would jump on it (or discuss it). But that would be more in line with a [better source needed] or [additional citation(s) needed] template, not a "fail" tag.

I'm happy to work together to refine or clarify the citation, but I do think it's fair to ask that we keep the tone and editorial assumptions collegial. Tanx! — Eurodog (talk) 18:24, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

I have no objection to editors using primary sources such as that one. I do object when sufficient bibliographic information is not provided to tell readers which specific source is being cited. It is not acceptable to cite an entire set of documents when clearly one specific document was the source that an editor consulted when writing the article. I would equally object if an editor cited "Encyclopedia Britannica" without specifying the specific volume and year.
This is especially important for information such as the figures in the article that change each year. ElKevbo (talk) 21:51, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Following up, after reading your response and rechecking the edit history – it turns out the "Place of Student Residence" paragraph was added to the article back July 30, 2014, by Tribestros ... and the data hasn’t been updated since. So the root of the problem is actually that we're citing decade-old statistics as current — not that the source is inherently unverifiable.
I've also since learned that the most recent Fact Book (2022–2023) does not include the student residence breakdown altogether — but the 2021–2022 Fact Book does (Exhibit B-18; p. 33), which I plan to use to update the numbers and clean up the citation.
I understand your point about needing a more pinpointed citation. But I'd also gently suggest that when the link is to an institutionally archived page listing over a dozen well-labeled PDFs — one per year — that may not qualify as a "vague handwave" – a phrase that is itself vague.
Pointing to the site that holds all the Fact Books, strongly aids long-term maintenance (for other editors), especially for data that changes annually. If I had realized what you were after, I could've provided the exact doc and page immediately — which is what I'm about to do now.
Just wanted to close the loop, respectfully. – Eurodog (talk) 03:03, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

University of Denver Fraternities and Sororities

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I work for the University and don't understand why the chart of organizations continues to be deleted. The purpose is to share as much information as possible but it continues to be deleted. Cmiofsky (talk) 17:16, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 May 2025

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please respond at Template talk:Business school rankings

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Waldorf University

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Regarding your note that "the university doesn't control this article and its employees should not be editing it,” I am a Waldorf Alum trying to get the data on the Wiki page of my alma mater updated. I wish you would just STOP reverting the changes. The university has been approved as a non-profit institution and can provide the documentation to prove it. Please stop changing them back to a for-profit status because this is false and inaccurate information. MKT at Waldorf University (talk) 13:52, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Concerns with UNT article

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Greetings, I've had to undo some questionable stylistic decisions at University of North Texas and I couldn't agree more with your concern over how the article is now very wieldy and difficult to maintain. I figure it'd be best to ask for a second opinion on the possibility of pushing back the changes and tidying up the page, which would necessarily involve undoing a lot of Eurodog's sourcing work. Do you think this would be a viable path? Thanks, /over.throws/✎ 16:55, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I recommend posting in the article's Talk page to let Eurodog about your concerns and what you'd like to do in the article. That would give them an opportunity to respond and others a change to weigh in, too. ElKevbo (talk) 00:33, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

NYU Grossman School of Medicine Milestones

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi friend!

I noticed you removed the Milestones section from the NYU Grossman School of Medicine article. That was a significant amount of content, and while I agree that much of it would be better integrated into the History section, most of the items weren't actually duplicates.

To avoid losing the information entirely, I’d like to temporarily restore the Milestones section (without the duplicates) so the content remains accessible while I work on incorporating it more appropriately into the History section over time. Would you be okay with that approach?

Thanks for your insight! Trench72CoatAnt (talk) 20:26, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Okay. Have fun! ElKevbo (talk) 21:34, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
Thanks! Quite a bit of work to do. Appreciate you. Trench72CoatAnt (talk) 19:24, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

CS1 error on Southern Illinois University Carbondale

Latest comment: 11 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

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

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 01:54, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 June 2025

Latest comment: 11 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Augusta University Wikipedia Page

Latest comment: 11 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Good morning! I wanted to reach out and request that you allow AU to edit our page as needed. Adding a link to the Dental College of Georgia is both accurate and an appropriate use of our Wikipedia page. If you have any questions or concerns, I would be happy to address them. The DCG is the only dental college in the state of Georgia and as such adding a link to our web page is very relevant to the public interest. Stacey hudson (talk) 12:59, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

You're welcome to open a discussion in the article's Talk page but we generally don't place external links in the body of articles and I am very skeptical that editors would come to a consensus to make an exception. ElKevbo (talk) 00:00, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Ave Maria School of Law Wiki Page

Latest comment: 11 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Morning Kevin,

I see that you have removed a good deal of the additions we have made to the page itself - with the note detailing why (rv blatant whitewashing). We went through the text and wanted to make sure it was balanced and of neutral status.

While I am trying to understand your viewpoint, adding more details about the Academics, Rankings, Campus (buildings, etc) in a neutral tonality is exactly what we are trying to accomplish here. That's not what we would consider as whitewashing - the last thing we would care to do, more so an expansion upon the page itself without omission of facts and details while keeping a balance of information.

Our Academics section is only one paragraph long, which in a sense is minimizing of data. Also, the faculty count is outdated and could be added upon / fleshed out in a continuous reading fashion.

I would be happy to work with you on this, when time allows. FloridaDev (talk) 14:10, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Who is "we?" And are you connected to the school? ElKevbo (talk) 00:01, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ElKevbo/Archive_31&oldid=1335347888"