User talk:ElKevbo/Archive 23

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for any information you can provide!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is a source that Bruce E. Grewcock went to Mines: https://themoles.net/aboutUs_awards_Grewcock.php — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakevossen5 (talk • contribs) 00:18, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to edit the article and add that information! ElKevbo (talk) 22:18, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

It is not speculation that Federer will over take Nadal as No. 1 on the ATP rankings. It is a numerical fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.98.252.2 (talk) 22:16, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know about the red wikilinks. Also, please take a look at Rizwan Ahmed (bureaucrat) where there are two tags regarding OR and unrealiable references. There hasn't been a concensus regarding the tag being placed on the top of the page to generalise the article or at indiviual sentences to point out faults, as most of the matter mentioned is already backed by references containing leading newspapers. Thank you (Regent007 (talk) 13:43, 19 February 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Hey ElKevbo, what do you think of this. I almost reverted it and was going to leave the person requesting the move to start a RM simply because we don't go how the universities want to be stylized... thoughts? Corky 23:04, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what the MOS says about this. I seem to recall that many institutions with hyphens in their names have article titles with dashes (e.g., Columbia-Greene Community College is at Columbia–Greene Community College, Chandler-Gilbert Community College is at Chandler–Gilbert Community College) but I don't know if those titles exist because there's widespread consensus on the issue or because a handful of editors were persistent or consistent in making the changes at some point in the past. Maybe some of the editors who hang out at WT:MOS can point you in the right direction...? ElKevbo (talk) 02:36, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will ask someone and let you know! Corky 17:36, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Corkythehornetfan: Please do! I left a message on a similar topic (are ampersands changed to "and" in all or most cases?) at WT:MOSTITLE a few days ago and I never got a reply so I'll be curious to see if you get one. ElKevbo (talk) 04:08, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They said we use endash, so I've moved the article back. Also, you've gotten responses at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Titles#Ampersands discouraged? now! 😁 Corky 02:47, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for following up on this. For what it's worth, I don't care very much about these issues as long as (a) we're consistent and (b) there are redirects to ensure that readers get to the article they're looking for when they search for topics. ElKevbo (talk) 04:08, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I completely agree on consistency! That's the main reason I brought it up. The user I asked said they had a consensus on the endash, but couldn't remember how long ago that was. I just don't like the reason of "that's the way the university wants stylized"... as if we should go do everything the universities want?! Corky 04:48, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And now in your opinion is it accurate? Where is the sub-title? and the edition? In a citation the place of publication must come before the publisher (cfr. ISO 690:2010). --94.164.229.216 (talk) 10:15, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no universal standard for bibliographies or citations. If there were then we wouldn't have the many style guides that we do have e.g., APA, Chicago, MLA. ElKevbo (talk) 14:21, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An international standard exists (ISO 690), but we don't follow it. So I give you reason that it is better not to put "in this order". --94.162.140.45 (talk) 19:31, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if there is a standard if few (no?) people use it. Our articles must be descriptive, not prescriptive. ElKevbo (talk) 21:05, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

Fort Valley State University (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Georgia

Franciscan University of Steubenville (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Peter Murphy

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have invited the anon editor to discuss differences on the article's talk page. Hopefully the parties can resolve their differences. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 22:36, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kevin! Thank you for reviewing my edits so promptly. I am hoping to correct the classification of Catawba College (described incorrectly as a liberal arts college) and would greatly appreciate it if this fact can be substantiated on the Catawba website or US World & News website and edited appropriately however you see fit (www.catawba.edu/overview or https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/rankings/regional-colleges). Catawba is not listed or classified under liberal arts, but rather under Regional Colleges South.

Your assistance and consideration is greatly appreciated! Maegen at Catawba College (talk) 20:59, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Maegen at Catawba College: Thanks for your note!

I don't think that using USN&WR as a source for classification is a very good idea; they're not objective (not that anyone is ever completely objective!). I think a better source is something like the institution's Carnegie classification. However, the issue there is that some of the language is not familiar to many readers e.g., "Baccalaureate." So that doesn't get us very far for this college.

Do I understand correctly that your primary objection is to describing the institution as a "liberal arts college?" If so, I'm fine with changing that language. My objection to your edit was primarily to all of the other changes you made e.g., describing the institution as "in the South" is not at all meaningful for our international readership. What language would you suggest? Would it be sufficient to simply remove the "liberal arts" part and leave it as "college" in the lead sentence with more specific details left for the body of the article? ElKevbo (talk) 22:01, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin

Thank you - that's it exactly! I would suggest changing it to read "private regional college" or just "private college" as you suggest. That is accurate and would make it a correct description. Thank you very much!

Maegen at Catawba College (talk) 18:45, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I left in the "coeducational" bit. I don't think it's necessary but it's accurate, innocuous, and common in articles. ElKevbo (talk) 00:19, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted a notice re HC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities. – S. Rich (talk) 17:14, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. Thanks for letting me know. ElKevbo (talk) 21:52, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You recently removed a citation to the Social Work Degree Guide from the article on the Wayne State School of Social Work. You did so on the ground that the site was "thinly disguised click bait aimed entirely at advertisers." I have reviewed the Social Work Degree Guide and can't find any evidence to back up your assertion. Indeed, the site does not even appear to contain advertising. Can you provide evidence to support your claim that the site is "click bait aimed entirely at advertisers"? Cbl62 (talk) 14:21, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First, it's up to you - the editor who wants to add or retain a source - to establish that it's reliable. Second, the webpage has no information whatsoever about who controls it or their expertise. A legitimate site would probably include information about the authors and their experience and expertise. Third, the site is identical to dozens of others that exist exclusively to sale leads to colleges who want to advertise on the site; that's how institutions are commonly included in the websites' search engines or placed more highly on their search results. ElKevbo (talk) 18:34, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, no. You are the one who made the startling and serious assertion that the site was "thinly disguised click bait aimed entirely at advertisers".If you have no evidence to support your charge, have the honesty to admit you erred and withdraw the allegation. Cbl62 (talk) 05:56, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My review of the Social Work Degree Guide reveals no advertising or paid content whatsoever. Moreover, the site's content has been recognized as trustworthy and notable by mainstream news sources and academic institutions. See San Diego Union-Tribune,MassLive.com, Waco Tribune-Herald, The Independent, The Huffington Post, Catholic University (also here), University of North Carolina, University of Texas, Syracuse University,University of Louisville, University of Georgia, etc. Social Work Degree Guide was also cited as a source in this doctoral dissertation on the topic of quality is social work education. Do you have any evidence whatsoever that the site is not reliable or that it is "clickbait" or that rankings are bought and paid for? Cbl62 (talk) 06:42, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've copied this discussion and posted my reply to Talk:Wayne State University School of Social Work so other interested editors can more easily see it and reply. ElKevbo (talk) 14:21, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for this edit to Atlanta's John Marshall Law School, undeniably a good call. I'm friends with AOM831 IRL and they asked me to look into it. I explained some about WP:RS and they read the policy, they understood and they're willing to put more work into it, but I thought we should talk to you first. They showed me two sources that I thought were ok (albeit not awesome) so I wanted to see what you'd think of re-adding some of the info that can be sourced to them: [1] and [2]. You think these might be acceptable? Should we start a section on the talk page? I've been editing only rarely lately so pardon my rustiness. Anyway thanks for taking the time to look into it. Peace, delldot ∇. 00:56, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At first glance that first source looks sketchy but it might be ok. The second source looks a bit better if only because a quick glance seems to indicate that the author is an experienced and published journalist. The information doesn't appear to be of the magnitude to be included in the lede of the article but it may warrant inclusion in the body especially if other sources can be found that most editors can agree are reliable. Starting a discussion in Talk is definitely what I'd recommend. ElKevbo (talk) 01:01, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok will do, thanks much! delldot ∇. 01:14, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Green River College, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Washington (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Harcum College, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bryn Mawr (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:36, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

She's actually oppressing an entire subset of the population and I don't get how so many people love her for it.

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of YouTubers 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/List of YouTubers (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. wumbolo ^^^ 20:18, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, I dont work for Comunicar, Im a student working on a master research project about media education and I read Comunicar very frequently, so Im very into their papers, but only as a researcher. What Im actually doing with Wikipedia is to get to know it better, because I believe in the project, so I can teach it to my future students, thats why Im making this exercises with the topic I know. I feel very sorry if Im incurring into conflict of interest, how can I solve it, so I dont lose the edits I have done? or are they already lost? Thanks for your help!Anyvalle (talk) 09:12, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally, we'd rarely cite individual journal articles in an encyclopedia. To ensure that we're writing about information that is really notable and important, we should rely more on documents that responsibly evaluate and synthesize published research e.g., metastudies, high quality literature reviews, peer-reviewed books that explicitly synthesize material. That also helps us avoid individual studies that turn out to be incorrect or problematic in some way. ElKevbo (talk) 14:17, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I added a reference in the blurb and hyperlinked the Wikipedia page (Tier 1), which you can find the source as well. It is not exclusive to UC schools, and Merced is Tier 2 for research. SJSU_Moi (talk) 10:22, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SJSU Moi: That link goes to "Research 1" universities, not "Tier 1." I'm not familiar with the "Tier 1" terminology which is why I am asking for references for that specific terminology. ElKevbo (talk) 10:42, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and removed the term from the articles to which you added it; I can't find any good references supporting the term and I've never heard of it. Did you perhaps get it confused with "R1" which is a commonly used term (as an abbreviation of "Research 1")? In any case, you also added the term to infoboxes of institutions as an affiliation where the term clearly doesn't belong even if it is commonly used by others; it's a taxonomic classification, not an organization with which institutions are affiliated. ElKevbo (talk) 20:28, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin: Thank you for your help with editing the Bakke Graduate University page. However somehow you first reverted the page to a 2012 version then started editing that. I would appreciate your help to edit the 2018 version so we can get it right. I've reverted it back to the 2018 version and would welcome your help in that version. Thank you Bbanz (talk) 14:44, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I reverted all of your edits and then noticed some additional edits that I think should be made. You've reverted my reversions which is an edit war; I strongly recommend you undo your reversions so we can discuss the issues.

I further recommend you review our policy regarding external links, our policy regarding reliable sources, and our recommendations for college and university articles. Your edits introduced many external links into the body of the article which we don't allow. Your edits, especially your recent reversions to my edits, introduced material that isn't supported by any references. And many of your edits add material that isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia article e.g., details about the institution's mission statement isn't necessary in the lede, details about the specific degree programs shouldn't be included in the article at all, original research about the topics of courses at the institution shouldn't be included in the article.

Additionally, if you have a relationship with the university then you must review our policies regarding conflicts of interest. In general, if you have relationship with a subject then you shouldn't make substantive edits to the article but should instead seek advice and help in the article's Talk page. ElKevbo (talk) 16:01, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm psychic so let me guess the mission statement... Wait, wait, it's coming to me... "To provide world-class educational opportunities to the community"? "To synergize leveraging"? "To demonstrate integrative leadership"? Am I close? EEng 16:07, 11 June 2018 (UTC) P.S. It's hard to imagine how anyone in the US could name a new educational institution "Bakke" with a straight face.[reply]

Kevin: It is not my intent to be in an edit war and I would be glad to discuss this with you on any format you'd choose. The reason I had to undo your edits was because you undid the edits back to a 2012 version so I needed to get it to a current version and work from there. From that version I would welcome your revisions and edits. I will work on the specific suggestions you have made above and then welcome your input to further hone it to Wikipedia standards after I work with your recommendations above.

EEng: I'm not sure about the 'psychic' statement. The mission statement BGU has had since 2004 was in the 2018 version of the article but it does not include the phrases you've mentioned. There is a totally unrelated "Bakke" that instigated a reverse discrimination suit in 1978. The name Bakke is actually a common Norwegian name and in places outside of the US, most see it positively from the 100 million people in developing countries who obtained electricity as a result of Dennis Bakke's company. There is a movie called "The Power Trip" about the Bakke work in Georgia (former Soviet Union). Bbanz (talk) 16:58, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The mission statement currently in the article has synergy and leadership and integrating, so I think I did pretty well, actually. I'm obviously aware of Bakke v. Regents or why else would I have said what I said? EEng 17:33, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ElKevbo (talk): Thank you for your help. I have removed all external links, the institution's mission statement, details about the specific degree programs, and the topics in the courses. I've read the links you provided. I understand more appropriate references are needed but am finding other University sites I am viewing are not doing much better. What is a good University site I can use as an example? What other changes would you suggest? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbanz (talk • contribs) 20:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This webpage lists all of the Wikipedia articles that are "Feature-class" (the very best articles in Wikipedia) and associated with the college and university Wikiproject. That's an excellent place to start if you want to see really good college and university articles. ElKevbo (talk) 20:54, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ElKevbo (talk) Thank you. These are excellent links. I'll work on continuing to improve the site toward these standards and welcome your edits and critiques. I appreciate your patience. I have a ways to go to learn how to do this. Bbanz (talk) Thank you for providing a list of good examples. I can help with this article too 21:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ElKevbo! I am User:ZfJames and I wanted to discuss your recent reversion of my edits to the Liberty University page. You stated that my edits were contentious but did not actually provide a reason within your edit summary for removing them beyond that. Wikipedia, as I am sure that you are aware, is not censored so your objection to the material content is not a sufficient reason to remove my edits. I would love to discuss this question (either here, on the Liberty University talk page, or on my talk page) civilly since I think you've probably got some valid points as well. Thank you for your efforts to improve Wikipedia! —zfJames Please add {{ping|ZfJames}} to your reply (talk page, contribs) 15:04, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please (a) review WP:BRD as it's not acceptable to revert another editor's revert and (b) open a discussion in the article's Talk page. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 15:58, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ElKevbo,

I've recently been looking for editors to invite to join New Page Patrol, and from your editing history, I think you would be a good candidate. Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; we could use some additional help from an experienced user like yourself.

Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. If you choose to apply, you can drop an application over at WP:PERM/NPR.

Cheers, and hope to see you around, — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 21:08, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Insertcleverphrasehere: I appreciate the invitation but I don't think I'd be very helpful because I am very tightly focused on my field of expertise, U.S. higher education. Thanks anyway! ElKevbo (talk) 01:22, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair enough. If it's not for you that is totally fine. Cheers, — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 03:14, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All the changes in the article are explained, and with the proofs.

If you want to polish the English in the page then fine, bat do not erase all the article changes!

Joe silver 1 (talk) 23:42, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Joe silver 1: I have replied at Talk:Capella University and it would be best if we could centralize the discussion in one place. ElKevbo (talk) 01:21, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, ElKevbo - to begin, this edit restores challenged material, a challenge that is supported by WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Please self-revert until consensus has been reached. You added it back and started a TP discussion while being able to cite only one RS to support the claim of two flagships, so again, please self-revert. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:31, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an exceptional claim, just one with which you disagree. ElKevbo (talk) 14:45, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, actually - the exceptional claim of two flagship universities is recent, the single flagship material is long standing as evidenced here. It is noncompliant to restore longstanding material to a stable article with improperly sourced exceptional claims. The IP recently added the two flagships claim without citing multiple independent RS to support such a claim. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:53, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, may I ask why you undid my edit to the Rhodes Scholarship page? I have read through the page and would say only about half of it is about controversies and the page seems quite weighted towars the past controversies. As the wikipedia project is to document the entire sum of human knowledge don't you feel that the Rhodes Scholarship page should be about the Rhodes scholarships and the Cecil Rhodes page should be about Cecil Rhodes? Also plenty of pages only mention controversies in the controversies section. Would you perhaps be willing to compromise and include a line about Rhodes' Anglo-supremicist agenda but make the rest of the information in the introduction and the page up to date? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pug of the day (talk • contribs) 16:29, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't undo your edit. I just readded one sentence from the older version. ElKevbo (talk) 16:53, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Delaware State University 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. Corky 15:28, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for edits and pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This isn't meant to imply any problems with your edits. I'm simply notifying everyone involved in the discussion at Talk:Liberty University as a routine formality. –dlthewave ☎ 00:39, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That was the editor's first edit. However, thanks to a script I use, I see "A registered user, 11 years 3 months old, with 1 edit" - which is pretty odd. I don't see any blocked accounts editing for the last 4 years (another script). Doug Weller talk 12:07, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, ElKevbo, I was wondering what your opinion is on this question? I honestly don't think it is worth mentioning (maybe... maybe if she had her own article), but I'm not quite sure what policies to cite. Corky 00:29, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please review the talk section on Georgia Highlands College? You made one edit there a while back. Recently, I wanted the page to match the depth of content of sister schools, but I'm affiliated with the institution. I wrote content I thought the page could have and posted it to Talk, as suggested by Meters on the talk page, but now need others not affiliated with the institution to edit that content into the main page if appropriate. ProfStv (talk) 16:32, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please revert your edit about the Carnegie Classification. Your edits for other institutions (University of Pennsylvania, Brandeis University) should also be reverted. There is no bias when stating that R1 is the highest academic index given to doctoral universities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bcf1291 (talk • contribs) 23:56, August 5, 2018 (UTC)

No. ElKevbo (talk) 03:58, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The classifications are factual. What you cited from The Chronicle of Higher Education is entirely one person's opinion. I am fine with avoiding the word "rank", but R1 is the highest classification. I copied directly from their website:

Doctoral Universities

Includes institutions that awarded at least 20 research/scholarship doctoral degrees during the update year (this does not include professional practice doctoral-level degrees, such as the JD, MD, PharmD, DPT, etc.). Excludes Special Focus Institutions and Tribal Colleges.

R1: Doctoral Universities – Highest research activity

R2: Doctoral Universities – Higher research activity

R3: Doctoral Universities – Moderate research activity

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bcf1291 (talk • contribs) 00:09, August 6, 2018 (UTC)

First, that "person" who holds the opinion is a Professor of Higher Education and the current director of the Carnegie Classification project; it's folly to carelessly dismiss his opinion as worthless.

Second, describing the description as being "highest" outside of anything but a careful and technical explanation of how the taxonomy defines and categorizes "research activity" is POV. This is particularly obvious when you add details about how many other "similar" (as you determine similarity) universities are similarly classified. You're better off either sticking with the classification - which links to the appropriate Wikipedia article that has all of the gory, boring details - or just describing the specific information that the classification used to assign the category so that readers can make their own judgments.

Third, it would be helpful if you signed your posts on Talk pages. You just need to type four tilde characters: (~~~~. Thanks! 04:19, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

My point is that an editorial contains an opinion, so it should not be used as a definitive source. Yes, I understand that the professor is the director of the Carnegie Classification project. His main points are that "R1" does not indicate the highest quality research, and the classifications are not rankings.Bcf1291 (talk) 04:25, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I invite you both to join Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities#Standard wording for Carnegie classification to have a centralized discussion and get a consensus standardized way to include this on all affected articles. DMacks (talk) 04:45, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I was planning to bring this up at some point but I'm happy to have the discussion now. ElKevbo (talk) 04:13, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear ElKevbo,

The website Niche's ranking for diversity is solely based on reviews not any actual statistics. I am trying to start to make changes to the website to represent more actual inclusion (eg.- listing notable Bryn Mawr alum of color, trans alum, etc). Please, let me edit as a Bryn Mawr alum who is well ingrained in Bryn Mawr's community. Otherwise, I will have to contact the Wikipedia board if we're going to be going back and forth on this all day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmcmawrter (talk • contribs) 11:03, August 10, 2018 (UTC)

@Bmcmawrter: If your objection to the information is that it's inaccurate, please clearly state that in your edit summaries or in the article's Talk page. You didn't explain your edit at all and in fact you're engaged in an edit war because you've repeatedly made the same edits. Stop edit warring and open a discussion on the article's Talk page, please. ElKevbo (talk) 15:09, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Sir.

I will be grateful if you can give me more advice on making edits.

RespectfullyLOBOSKYJOJO (talk) 20:18, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@LOBOSKYJOJO: I have two primary objections to much - but not all! - of the information that you've added to a few articles. First, you've relied heavily on either partisan sources or popular press articles. Those aren't necessarily bad sources but in the areas that you've been trying to contribute there are tons of high quality materials written and reviewed by scholars and experts so you should be relying on those materials instead. Second, many of your edits are about potential actions that the current presidential administration may take or would like to take. I strongly advise that you hold off on most of those edits until we see if those desires ever become concrete actions. The executive branch is limited in what it can do especially when (a) so many members of the legislative branch are opposed, including many in the same party as the president, and (b) so many of the actions that are being taken are being struck down by the judicial branch. It's unquestionable that some of their desires will be turned into meaningful, lasting change but there's no reason to document everything in detail until we know which actions will be lasting and which ones will be nullified, overturned, or otherwise make no meaningful impact.

On several occasions you've also strongly presented the views of the executive branch as if their arguments are facts or inevitabilities when often they are neither. Doing so, especially using Wikipedia's voice, is a violation of one of our key tenets.

I recommend you select better sources, be more selective in the information you propose adding to articles, and perhaps discuss your proposed additions in Talk. I also recommend that you make smaller edits instead of adding large sections all at once; that makes it easier for other editors to contest or raise questions about parts of your edits without having to challenge or question everything at once. ElKevbo (talk) 05:04, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Sir. That is well noted.LOBOSKYJOJO (talk) 19:28, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

Mz7 (talk) 04:25, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 05:30, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe those sources was from these links below. I signed d up my Wikipedia account to record about this too.When I followed the links from his daughter Facebook Page . He was our best Minister of Education ,His Policy was Education for All.

These is how I found the information from his daughter Facebook Page.

His daughter uploaded that when she was talking about Thailand World Longest Bridge (until recently)

• https://www.flickr.com/photos/148083379@N08/28944278137/in/dateposted-public

• https://www.flickr.com/photos/148083379@N08/43880661581/in/dateposted-public

Both Images was from this link

• https://pantip.com/topic/37934046

She was saying about Thailand World Longest Bridge

https://www.businessinsider.com/longest-bridges-in-the-world-2018-4

• https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=990288397810603&id=868123380027106

• https://www.facebook.com/868123380027106/posts/968986366607473/ this was the link with more than 100000 likes

and l guessed a lot of people founded it too because someone already wrote down.

• • • Form Facebook to Pantip Website to Flickr Photos that seem to be hanging on the wall probably in Duputy Priminister House ,l also think it should be reliable sources.But you are the administrator,we have to believe you .Can you give me the advice ? What ‘s kind of the reliable sources , I have to provide?

Thanks you Elemis2018 (talk) 03:29, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend reviewing WP:RS. In general, we should be citing high quality, published sources e.g., news articles by established journalists, scholarly articles, books published by reputable publishers. A photo of someone's diploma is a primary source and we try not to use those because they often have not been vetted by experts. ElKevbo (talk) 14:23, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ElKevbo, help me understand how removing unsubstantiated opinion from an article represents a conflict of interest. Does an editor not have the opportunity to correct information that is misleading, unattributed, unsubstantiated? Why does the original posting stand instead of the attempt to remove inaccurate or defamatory information that is clearly opinion from a particular point of view/interpretation, and not encyclopedic information. Help me, I'm lost. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Csmithsouth (talk • contribs) 04:33, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Csmithsouth: First, I strongly encourage you to read the information I posted on your User Talk page. If you work for the institution, especially if you explicitly work for the institution in a public relations capacity, you should not be making controversial edits to the article at all but instead you should be making suggestions and requests on the article's Talk page. This is particularly critical if your proposed edits could be perceived as biased e.g., removing only negative information. Second, the information you removed came from multiple sources, not just one questionable source. It also spanned multiple topics.

Stop editing the article and discuss your objections in Talk. ElKevbo (talk) 11:50, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying. I understand the process and policies better now. i will proceed accordingly.

Here is my lingering question that I would sincerely like answered: why is an alumnus (or several alumni) who made the original edits to the entry not considered to have COI? The entry/edit in question is not substantiated by the refernced attribution, it is a personal opinion and interpretation of events that are otherwise able to be stated factually (as referenced in the article used to document the edit). In short, why did know one cry foul when the original edit was made in the same way? this is the part if the process im unclear on. thanks for any insight you can provide. 107.77.196.139 (talk) 16:52, 24 August 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Csmithsouth (talk • contribs)

I think that alumni do have a (weak) conflict of interest on articles about their alma mater. I don't know how many other editors agree with that viewpoint. I also don't routinely check to see if an editor has made a public declaration of their alumnus status or has an obvious connection to an institution. (It is often much, much easier to notice when an editor works for an institution's public relations unit; the language used is often clearly POV, riddled with "marketing speak," and often copies directly from the institution's website. And it's really obvious when someone removes a lot of material and the only obvious thread connecting all of it is that it's negative.)

If there is specific material that is in the article that is not supported by a reliable source or has been summarized poorly or incorrectly, please bring that up on the article's Talk page. Right now it's difficult for me (and presumably other editors) to see specific details in the large mass of material that you tried to remove; most or all of it seems to be completely fine so we need some help with fine details. ElKevbo (talk) 17:58, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

... this? Aside from the conlfict of interest that they have... Corky 22:47, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've already tried raising the question of whether we should have that parameter in that infobox at all; it's already bloated and way too detailed as it tries to address possible information for every country on the planet. As long as we retain the parameter with no useful guidance on its use we can hardly blame well-meaning editors for trying to use it - as long as it within other editing norms, of course (e.g., no edit wars, build consensus). ElKevbo (talk) 02:08, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! It's too much clutter if you ask me. Limiting to one or two former names is fine but having seven or eight (long names) just makes it a mess. Have you thought about doing a RFC? Corky 02:26, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't feel strongly enough about the topic to do anything that looks like actual work. :) It's annoying but pretty far down on my list of priorities. ElKevbo (talk) 02:29, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, I hear ya! I might look into it, but may not get to it for awhile. Corky 02:32, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is tnecampus.org. Thank you. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:51, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I didn't mean to restore that EL in this edit. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:25, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! :) ElKevbo (talk) 19:08, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ElKevbo,

Thanks for your recent edits to Goucher College. I see your point about merging the administration/presidents and history sections, though I think it would require trimming both and removing redundant information. For now I have reverted your edit, but I will see to it that the content in the former is seamlessly incorporated into the latter.Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:15, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just made the changes described above. Feel free to review again when you have the chance!Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:20, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikieditor19920: I don't understand; the presidents are still listed separately outside of the history section which is the only place where most of them are noteworthy. How do readers benefit from having that list of historical figures in a completely different section especially when most of them are not notable on their own? ElKevbo (talk) 02:10, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A number of other colleges have placed lists of presidents either on separate Wiki pages or at the bottom. You'll find very few, spare Franklin & Marshall, that do otherwise, and I think it's a poor editing decision because it makes the history section too long and unwieldy. Also, it is accurate to include the list under Administration.Wikieditor19920 (talk) 13:20, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find that a very convincing argument about why you believe that the list should be in a separate section of the article. If the primary argument is that the list is long and unwieldy then make it collapsible and collapsed by default.

In fact, why do we need to include this list at all? How is it helpful for readers to have a list of people with no context or explanation? ElKevbo (talk) 13:36, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Incidentally, I'm really not focused just on this college; I have these concerns about how this material is handled in virtually every article. Gotta start somewhere, right? ElKevbo (talk) 13:37, 1 September 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Well, the argument I outlined above is in fact my position. I hadn't considered a collapsible list, but I see that as a somewhat complex solution to a problem that doesn't really exist. Also, I would note that most other editors, as indicated by what's apparent on other university pages, seem to have come to the same conclusion about the placement of lists. As far as whether a list of presidents should be included at all, I am not the one who inserted it originally, but I am for keeping it because I think that an institution's leadership reveals something important about it, particularly in the case of colleges/universities. And I am not ready to agree with you about notability. I think there are enough WP:RS to establish notability for at least several persons on the list, and I may at a later time create separate pages for them. And on your last point, that's fair and I think we're in agreement there.Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:37, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly are readers supposed to learn from that bare listing of names? ElKevbo (talk) 23:35, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would imagine that, for any institution, it serves an encyclopedic purpose to provide a list of its leadership. Almost all colleges' pages seem to include such a list or contain an internal link to one. On another note, I appreciate your insertion of a drop-down list onto the page; that actually seems work quite well. Thanks!Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:40, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the only answer that any of us can offer then we need to rethink this common practice. If it doesn't help readers then why are we doing it? ElKevbo (talk) 02:51, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I put some thought into your comments above and how to change the article accordingly. The list is now on List of Goucher College people and I created pages for notable presidents. Feel free to take a look if you get around to it. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:59, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Read the post on Jytdog. The user asked me for the exact same information you posted on my talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by M7bswiki (talk • contribs) 05:48, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I still maintain that the information isn't appropriate in most (or any) articles or helpful for readers especially if it can't be substantiated by independent sources that don't have a vested interest in promoting the topic e.g., higher education scholars, economists who study business schools. ElKevbo (talk) 05:56, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair argument, but I don't agree with you and Jytdog randomly deleting information just because a user with the name M7bswiki has been contributing most of the information. Instead of framing me as a false distributor of information, it would've been better if you two add a citation for verification asking for additional sources on the discussion page or asking users/readers for additional sources. Also, if you still think my contributions are fictitious or distorted for "marketing", the information has been posted up there by various users for quite a few years; most of my contributions were simply adding links to the statements, correcting grammatical errors in the overall page, and contributing to a page created by another unaffiliated user. The point of me making an account named "M7bswiki" was to focus on editing and adding information for these particular schools of interest - not for purposes of promotion or marketing. The "M7" has been a thing since around 2005, and is a very common term used in business school and finance-related forums like WSO or GMATClub. Despite lacking solid independent sources, I wouldn't completely dismiss and delete information about the "M7" because of its strong use and influence in business school culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Genericusername9631 (talk • contribs) 02:40, September 5, 2018 (UTC)

I removed the information and nominated the article for deletion because they lack reliable, independent sources. ElKevbo (talk) 12:42, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ElKevbo,

I am the director of media management/pr for HCC and the information I provided is not copyrighted. What had been provided by someone else was incomplete and did not accurately reflect HCC's history. Could you please add my edits back?

Thank you,

Janice Evans Director Media Management/PR Houston Community College 713-718-2368 [email protected] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jevansdavis (talk • contribs) 14:50, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jevansdavis: I've left a note on your User Talk page about how we usually handle conflicts of interest. You'll also need to look at our policies related to paid editing if you're going to continue editing articles related to your employment in the college's public relations unit. ElKevbo (talk) 15:06, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin,

How can HCC get accurate information displayed on its page? The information currently there is inaccurate and incomplete. The HCC Fact Book is available as a source for everyone and anyone. Why not use it? Jevansdavis (talk) 15:25, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to make suggestions and requests in the article's Talk page. It's a bad idea for you to directly edit the article given that you have an undeniable conflict of interest. It's impermissible to simply copy-and-paste copyrighted information into the article. ElKevbo (talk) 15:37, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, just chill. As I said, the content you are changing has been in place for years. There is nothing whatsoever urgent here. Discuss it. You know very well when dispute arises over content (unless the content is BLP violating, which clearly this isn't), status quo is default until consensus is reached. There is nothing constructive in your actions whatsoever. It was as it was yesterday, and 4 years ago yesterday. There is nothing whatsoever that has to be changed NOW. John from Idegon (talk) 06:26, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, it needs to be changed. It's such a blatant violation of policy wide policies and community norms that it can't be allowed to stand especially when fixing it will be easy. ElKevbo (talk) 06:31, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So this MUST be dealt with RIGHT NOW because yousayso? I do not accept behavior like that from my six year old and I'm sure as fuck not going to accept it from a person who has been entrusted with a position of authority in our very powerful community. Get over yourself, stop acting like a dick and discuss it. It's going on one AM where I am, and I have to work in the morning. I'll TTYL. If you've unilaterally changed it again when I sign in tomorrow wellw be discussing your behavior at AN, if not we can have a discussion about the issue at hand. Pretty simple. John from Idegon (talk) 06:44, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, we're dealing with it because we're a community and as a whole we've decided on a few basic, core principles that smaller groups of editors can't override. Can you please help come up with the necessary replacement text that meets our needs without contradicting WP:N and WP:BIO? Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 06:47, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you and I agree on the policy in question; what we disagree on are whether the guideline contradicts it, and on the appropriate response. Battling, shouting, profanity, passive aggressive denigrations in edit captions generally alienate, rather than persuade. Please explain, on the article talk page, why you feel the guideline violates policy and how you would fix it. I have encountered most of the editors who have commented on this discussion, and found them to be amenable to logical discussion. Have a little patience, explain your thoughts, and respond to concerns rather than demanding immediate subservience to your views, and I'm sure that policy-based consensus will follow.Jacona (talk) 14:47, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:ElKevbo reported by User:Billhpike (Result: ). Thank you. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 07:36, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ElKevbo,

Regarding MLA Handbook and my addition citationgenerator.com:

All other sites are owned by the same company and are full of ads; difficult to use.

Is that adequate enough? I think so.

Best regards, Jim — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.46.45.36 (talk) 09:35, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Hey, thanks for the information you suggested. Appreciate your hard work. Thanks. Varshapaul (talk) 04:48, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your recent edit where you removed a notable with an edit summary of "neither a source nor a Wikipedia article", one of several such edits in the past few weeks. This edit was just made to a school article, where there is a source, but no article and a rather poor claim of notability. I've removed the entry twice and I'm approaching 3RR on this article, but I'd appreciate your thoughts on a case like this, with no article and no meaningful claim of notability. Should an entry like this be included on a list based on the source? Alansohn (talk) 01:09, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but my understanding of WP:N is that it doesn't control the content of articles so it's inappropriate to require that this person be independently notable just to be added to an article. It's also supported by some sources so it passes the bare minimum of WP:V. So I think your next step is to open a discussion in Talk where you can determine if there is a consensus to include or exclude this content. I think that you may get more traction with more editors if you argue from an angle of "this information isn't necessary or helpful for readers." ElKevbo (talk) 02:16, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This student fails not only WP:NOTABLE but also WP:NOTEWORTHY. If there are anlytic sources that give significant weight to this students attendence, it may be worth having a discussion, but until such a source is provide, any discussion is waste of the communities time. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 02:35, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Berkeley College, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Associate (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:39, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

My name is Joe Stephens and I am a Marketing Assistant here at the Edith J. Carrier Arboretum. I made an account called "ejcarboretum" about 10 days ago and noticed that my account was deleted due to the copyrights policy. I apologize for not reading the policy before making the account. I was wondering if there was any possible way that I could add a section about the "Edith J. Carrier Arboretum" to the "James Madison University" page, similar to the "John C. Wells Planetarium" section. Please let me know when you have the chance.

Thank you!

Joe Stephens — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeAtEdithJCarrierArboretum (talk • contribs) 16:19, October 24, 2018 (UTC)

@JoeAtEdithJCarrierArboretum: The best way to go about this would be to post a request on the article's Talk page that includes the exact text that you would like someone else (without a conflict of interest) to add to the article. That way other editors can examine what you'd like added to the article and determine if they have any issues with it before adding it to the article.

You might also want to take a look at our policies regarding editors paid for their work. I'm not an expert on that topic but I wouldn't be at all surprised if most Wikipedia editors consider a "Marketing Assistant" at an institution to be a paid editor. ElKevbo (talk) 00:17, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In response to objections, I struck the two year moratorium thing at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#RfC:_Amendment_for_BIO_to_address_systemic_bias_in_the_base_of_sources. I'm notifying everybody who !voted. Jytdog (talk) 14:26, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I’m writing to you from University of California Haas School of Business. I see that you recently reviewed the list of notable alumni on our Wikipedia page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haas_School_of_Business and deleted a number of them for being “neither a source nor a Wikipedia article.” I’m actually not sure what you mean by that. What’s the best way to post our notable alums? I assure you everyone posted is a Berkeley Haas alumnus and some are quite high up in the business world, so I would like to ensure they stay on the list.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dgoldentyer (talk • contribs) 03:38, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dgoldentyer: I recommend you begin by reviewing our conflict of interest policies; we strongly discourage people from editing articles related to their employer(s)! You're welcome to post requests and questions in the article's Talk page, however.

I also recommend reviewing our policy about reliable sources as the reason why I probably removed all of that material is because it all lacked sources. In general, material in this encyclopedia should be supported by one or more external sources (webpages, documents, etc.).

Please let me know if you have other questions! ElKevbo (talk) 05:29, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Kevin. Please don't assume I don't know about conflict of interest. I have read and abided by the rules; you'll see that our Berkeley Haas page is strictly factual. What would be a reliable source for who our alumni are?I think our alumni office would be. I can share web pages, such as these https://haas.berkeley.edu/about/at-a-glance/awards/, but again, that is from us. Dgoldentyer (talk) 17:25, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dgoldentyer: I again caution against editing your employer's Wikipedia articles. You certainly cannot do so without explicitly noting your connection to the subject and most editors would discourage you from doing so if even you made an explicit acknowledgement of a paid relationship. These encyclopedia articles are not intended to be promotional in nature and we generally push back quite forcefully when organizations attempt to influence or control articles or subjects.

Many of your webpages would probably be considered reliable sources for most purposes. If those are the only sources, however, I think the question that may arise next is whether those sources are sufficient to establish that someone is noteworthy enough to be included in an encyclopedia article. So it's probably best if you have other sources that most editors would readily agree are reliable, high quality, and independent. Does that make sense? ElKevbo (talk) 18:23, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here is proof of each of those alumni notability. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jTqa92sz9oUYRA1sZb1nq6GuW4ndSQqEr0duZkf7FBE/edit?usp=sharing. How long until we can put them back up on our web page? Thank you. Dgoldentyer (talk) Debra Goldentyer —Preceding undated comment added 00:36, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dgoldentyer, sorry, but that's not "proof"--it's an enumeration of links to web pages. There may be proof in it, but that's not the same thing. "Notability" is most easily established by subjects having Wikipedia articles, and that's typically the advise we give: write the article first, with WP:NSCHOLAR, for instance, in mind. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 00:40, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First, it isn't "your webpage." It's an encyclopedia article.

It would be easiest if you could write up exactly what you are requesting other editors to add to the article and place that either in the article's Talk page or in a sandbox. That will make it easy for other editors to (a) read the material, (b) make appropriate edits (if necessary), and (c) copy the material in the article. ElKevbo (talk) 01:00, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's frustrating. You had earlier said, "material in this encyclopedia should be supported by one or more external sources (webpages, documents, etc.)" I done this research and I have given you more than one internally respected source each for many of our alumni. Now you are changing the rules and requiring Wiki articles only. I worry that this will not satisfy either. You don't consider people profiled in the NY Times, Business Week, etc., notable? Bhavin Parikh has a Wiki article, as does Albert Lee and Greg Greeley. I have cited Forbes, BusinessWeek, People Magazine, TechCrunch, Wall Street Journal, Fortune 40 under 40, Inc., all to show how notable they are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dgoldentyer (talk • contribs) 21:19, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ElKevbo, I incorporated the location/connectivity to NYC info you deleted a couple of years ago because I have the distinct impression that most readers are not familiar with Newark's proximity to NYC, nor with the multiple rail connections between the two. I did this after noticing that many institutions of higher education include analogous info in their wiki pages. The information I included seemed to me to be quite relevant to readers intent on "getting a feel" for the institution and its place in the metro NY area. I assume you would agree that easy access to Manhattan is a attribute that most readers would want to know about, and further that most readers would rate such access a significant positive. So I ask you to reconsider your edit. Wrrsimone (talk) 23:12, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We have an entire article about Newark, New Jersey where readers can learn all of those details. If there are any that are of special importance to the university, please note that in the body of the article (with appropriate sources supporting the assertion of importance, of course!). ElKevbo (talk) 23:34, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Again Elkevbo, I looked around and noticed that the intro section of CalTech's page includes the following sentence: "Its 124-acre (50 ha) primary campus is located approximately 11 mi (18 km) northeast of downtown Los Angeles." I also noticed that RPI's intro section includes the sentence fragment: "Built on a hillside, RPI's 265-acre (107 ha) campus overlooks the city of Troy and the Hudson River.."

I am sure I could find numerous other examples of campus location/orientation info in intro sections if I tried. My question to you is: Where do you draw the line? Could I, for example, say something like: NJIT's campus is close to a bend in the Passaic River about 9 miles from Times Square? Or, to give another example, that it is located about a 25 minute train ride from Wall Street? I suggest to you that being "11 miles northeast of downtown Los Angeles" or "overlooking the city of Troy" is not quite as significant as either of the two examples I gave. By the way I included all the transit time info in a footnote expressly for the purpose of keeping the related text as concise as possible. I am not going to undo you edit but I ask you again to re-consider it, or to re-write my work in a way that meets your standards. Wrrsimone (talk) 19:34, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ElKevbo. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ElKevbo Thanks for the editing comments and tips for the new paragraphs describing Russian hacking activity at San Francisco State University. The references have been updated to external links outside of Wikipedia as suggested and where relevant and when not describing a term or acronym.

The removal of an entire section describing historical events appears highly disturbing however. Perhaps a talk on a section or comments on selected items *before removal* would be more appropriate? You have deleted multiple highly reference entries and large paragraphs of information that were updated over time.

Editing an entire section titled "Controversy" is itself controversial! People are going to think you work for Donald Trump or another organization attempting to silence people and re-write history. I'm sure that is not your intent. Wikipedia isn't as easy as newer tools in embedding comments beside an entry and jumping to the talk section is kludgey and takes time. Removing an entire entry ignores other peoples work. I think more selective edits would work as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victor De Scribe (talk • contribs) 17:39, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Victor De Scribe: I'm copying this into the article's Talk page so we can keep the discussion centralized there and other editors can participate.

I also recommend not accusing other editors of "attempting to silence people and re-write history;" that's not a productive way to work with others. ElKevbo (talk) 18:09, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear ElKevbo,

Thank you very much for your recent improvements on University of Massachusetts Lowell article. I had launched a little improvement project on the article some time ago, and am happy to see, that the improvement continues :) Also, since I'm still comparably new to Wiki, it's always good to learn from more experienced authors - like you clearly are! So: thank you!

Best regards from Germany, --Ruhri Jörg (talk) 08:39, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Leadership is an important aspect of higher education institutions. In the case of Ashford University, Dr. Swenson and Dr. Noone have key connections. Can you at least keep those entries?

Other large institutions include areas under "Organization and Administration." For example, please take a look at Penn State University.

^[1]

Information about university leadership is common in Wikipedia entries.

^[2]

Please consider allowing this section to exist.

Thank you in advance for your assistance.

CollegeMeltdown (talk) 13:15, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In most cases, I don't think that readers benefit from having paragraphs discussing administrators unless there are special, interesting, or unique ties between the person and the institution. The focus should remain on the subject of the article. We should be especially wary of repeating public relations language in articles that merely promote the subject or its employees without providing much information of substance.

I don't see a similar section in the Harvard article and I think that there was a bit too much of this in the Penn State article. You're probably much better off looking through the advice for college and university articles and the Featured Articles associated with the Universities project. ElKevbo (talk) 13:35, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ::@ElKevbo: I am sorry for disturbing you. I was hoping If you could help me out with wikiedu.org. Will that be possible. If not can you recommend an Instructor who could help me. I requested @Acdixon: for some help and was told that you would be able to guide me. Would Really appreciate it if you could help me. (Purplecart (talk) 15:04, 28 November 2018 (UTC))[reply]

@Purplecart: Can you please provide some more context and information? ElKevbo (talk) 16:46, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In 2007, this university had a widely publicised and well know Taser Incident that made national headlines and still continues to be referenced. How is this not mentioned anywhere on this page? Yankee529 (talk) 23:28, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please cite some reliable sources. ElKevbo (talk) 23:31, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I'm new to writing for Wikipedia, so I was curious why the addition of the University of Northern Iowa's ranking with the U.S. News and World Report was deleted as "unnecessary." I patterned the inclusion from other entries for universities on Wikipedia. For instance, the page for Missouri State University has almost the same sentence in the lede, with a link to the same source. So I'm wondering why it's OK for MSU, but not for UNI. I'm just trying to understand what is acceptable and unacceptable so I can avoid these issues in the future.

Thanks,

Acreasey (talk) 14:54, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The information may need to be removed from that article, too. In general, rankings should only be included in the lede if they're essential for readers to understand the subject e.g., the institution is always ranked the very best and the institution is widely known for it. If it's not essential for readers to know immediately then the information should not be in the lede but in the body of the article. ElKevbo (talk) 18:11, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry , I’m totally blind lmao , I thought you removed it. I’m on mobile so it didn’t show up right at the top. Whoops. Historybuff1111 (talk) 04:25, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! :) ElKevbo (talk) 04:55, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Kevin,

The domain which was provided before had capitals in the URL,i.e, FAFSA.gov, which is a deadlink in few browsers as the actual link is in lowercase,i.e,fafsa.gov. And the link is a hard 301 redirect to the https://studentaid.ed.gov/sa/fafsa page which is misleading to the user. And the Introduction provided for FAFSA is not very clear about the term FAFSA, even for U.S citizens. Please revert back to the actual definition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lohithparthiban123 (talk • contribs) 03:26, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lohithparthiban123: Domain names should not be case sensitive (but no one can vouch for what programmers actually do although I hope that we can rely on the major web browsers and operating systems to not screw this up!). I'm fine if you want to remove the URL altogether from the image description; it's probably sufficient to just say something like "Official FAFSA website" or something like that and leave the URL for the "External links" section anyway.

Please open a discussion in the article's Talk page if you think the lede should be dramatically changed and be specific about what should be changed. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 04:00, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ElKevbo Yes Kevin. We will need input from other contributors too as FAFSA is an important article to be discussed. Thanks, Lohith — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lohithparthiban123 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited New York Conservatory for Dramatic Arts, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Conservatory (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:43, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

I think it best to discuss recent edits to the NYU article (and any adjoining content) directly then to have a back on forth on the pages edits. I would like to first clarify that I do not have a conflict of interest that would for some reason invalidate edits I have been making i.e. a secondary interest that would have a greater weight then a primary interest and therefor become an objectionable risk to my ability to make 'good' edits. I do, however, appreciate your feedback and would like to invite a conversation considering we have been the most accurate and active editors for this article in recent months.

My goals have been as follows:

1. To update old statistics that do not reflect the most recent information available for this university.
2. To reform sections that do not meet 'good article' qualifications.
3. To remove information that may be considered as advertisement in nature from this article and articles directly related to it (mostly the college pages of the university linked in this article).
4. To update the article as a whole to more accurately reflect changes in higher education and NYU over the past five to ten years.

These goals outline why specifically we have been going back and forth (and a number of other editors in fact) over the beginning of the article. I believe the first paragraph as it is currently most accurately describes the university in present day, while also being fairly uniform when compared to other articles on institutions for higher education. If you have a reason, and more specifically, evidence that says the current introduction is for some reason misleading or inaccurate, I invite you to bring that up. However, with regards to my own knowledge, the way I have phrased this paragraph again most accurately reflects the facts. Jesser.maloney (talk) 19:45, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify: Do you have a relationship with the university?

And what discussions about the lede are you talking about? There is nothing on the article's Talk page. ElKevbo (talk) 20:28, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I started a discussion on the honor scandal section on U.S. Air Force Academy, and since your an interested party was wondering if you wanted to give your input! Garuda28 (talk) 02:03, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for noticing that the Carnegie Classification for Drexel is not a ranking. I have revised that information and placed it in the research section. Other R1 schools (Northeastern, Emory, GWU) also have this information in their entries. Pfdemp (talk) 13:43, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.
Since your last comments on the Template talk:Infobox school page ("as no one has offered significant evidence that this information is important enough to warrant inclusion in the infobox") are a clear example of indirect criticism, and since I issued three civility warnings to you before, I have notified the Wikipedia administrators' incidents noticeboard of your conduct. -- Jajhill (talk) 04:30, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I reverted a WP:SPA account who added negative news to both Furman and Wofford University, and who has made no other edits. The source was malformed, so I reverted as "unsourced" which I guess was technically wrong, but it's still WP:NOTNEWS. The "Title XI" controversy section is actually about a rape case, Title XI is only briefly mentioned in the source article, it's about an ongoing lawsuit which came out yesterday, and was added either by a sock (they got the referencing right the first time) or someone with malicious intent. It should not be in the article per WP:NOTNEWS, and even if you disagree, it definitely should not be under its own heading. I don't want to revert again per WP:3RR - would you mind either self-reverting or moving the prose elsewhere in the article? SportingFlyer T·C 03:20, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a strong opinion on that content; I only reverted your edit because all you did was change some minor things, including one edit that malformed a reference template. If you meant to remove the entire section, you didn't and I have no objection to you doing so (although it would be good practice to open a discussion in the article's Talk page). ElKevbo (talk) 04:05, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, you're right, I reverted the wrong edit. I've fixed it now. I avoided the talk page because it seemed to me like targeted vandalism - if it's important, we can add it back in. Thank you! SportingFlyer T·C 04:21, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's appropriate to label it vandalism. There have been several instances in which editors have added similar information to articles in good faith (although in most cases I think the information was eventually removed as many Title IX investigations have not resulted in large-scale, noteworthy change or lasting impact). ElKevbo (talk) 04:29, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please fix the citation error that you created on Argosy University. One of the citations that you deleted was named & reused. I’d do it myself, but I’m editing from my phone. Peaceray (talk) 01:53, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's a bot that will come along and clean that up shortly. If it doesn't, I'll take care of it - no worries! ElKevbo (talk) 02:06, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ElKevbo,

I noticed that you've reverted edits on the page Bachelor's Degree by another user. That user has continued to repeat the same behaviour, and so I have raised the issue on its talk page, and was wondering if you wanted to chip in. Naturally, feel free to ignore this if you so wish. Shadowssettle_(talk) 19:14, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in rampant hypocrisy; that means that you are repeatedly charging others with the same things you are doing, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly spamming articles with self-sourced promotional content.

Points to note:

1. Hypocrisy is disruptive regardless of how hypocritical you have been;
2. Do not be hypocritical even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in a hypocrisy situation, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in hypocrisy, you may be blocked from editing. Guy (Help!) 20:42, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to this, I highly recommend you strike it before it gets traction. WP:AN/I is supposed to be a last resort. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:07, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So exactly what am I supposed to do about an administrator who is flagrantly edit warring and threatening to block me because I disagree with him? ElKevbo (talk) 21:09, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just talk about it here first. That might be a good start. I'm just trying to help ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:15, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your offer to help but other administrators need to step in at this point. ElKevbo (talk) 21:16, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like one did just now. Cheers! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:21, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(not a lawyer) Under Wikipedia law, the only remedy for a post on a user-talk page that you don't like is the {{trout}} template. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:27, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor whose only reaction to an administrator abusing his power by edit warring and threatening to block another editor is to joke about it. Awesome. ElKevbo (talk) 07:54, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't threaten to block you, any more than you threatened to block me. "you may be blocked" has a meaning that is clearly distinct from "I will block you", but in fact as several people have pointed out the "warning" is a spoof version of the exact warning you put on my talk page, and not a real warning at all. It's a pity you didn't read the linked commentaries though. WP:NOTTHEM is starting to look like the most relevant page on Wikipedia for you right now. Guy (Help!) 09:02, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@JzG: Do not post on my User Talk page again. ElKevbo (talk) 12:06, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AN/I is supposed to be a last resort. Sad but true. Practically there is nothing you can do when you encounter an WP:UNBLOCKABLE. feminist (talk) 09:21, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you ever wonder, when you repeatedly get involved in angry exchanges, if it could be somehow related to your own behavior? How do you think it would have gone when you spontaneously burst into profanity on my talk page (when I more or less agreed with you, no less), if you'd been discussing with an admin? Jacona (talk) 14:36, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jacona: Do not post on my User Talk page again. ElKevbo (talk) 14:39, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Jacona et al. Banning people giving you good advice is silly! Roxy, the dog. wooF 13:14, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They're not here to give good advice; they're taking advantage of this situation to pile on because we've had negative interactions in the past. I welcome advice from colleagues; I won't tolerate continued harassment even under the guise of "advice." ElKevbo (talk) 13:57, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

...and why do you think you've had negative interactions? -Roxy, the dog. wooF 14:05, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because some people are assholes, Roxy. Editors may want to wait to see how that ANI thread turns out before coming here to offer advice. And Jacona, I looked, the only "profanity" I can find that ElKevbo posted on your page is the word "damn", which is not a real profanity. Leviv ich 16:13, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not by any means the only time he's blown his top for no good reason. I'll be happy to honor ElKevbo's wishes that I stay away from here, except when I'm being discussed. If you want to ban me, please give me the courtesy of not talking about me behind my back. Thanks.Jacona (talk) 16:32, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree wholeheartedly with Levivich, some people ‘’are’’ arseholes. Roxy, the dog. wooF 16:38, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Asking administrators to take a look into one of their peers who (a) is edit warring with multiple editors to enforce his own view of an article's content and (b) threatens to block me after I remind him that edit warring is unacceptable is "blowing [my] top for no reason?" I think you and I have very different understandings of what behavior is acceptable, especially for administrators. ElKevbo (talk) 17:52, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As you have been told multiple times, he didn't threaten to block you. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 17:55, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why in the world would I trust that an administrator who flagrantly edit wars would not also break the policy that he should not block an editor with whom he engaged in a content dispute? 18:35, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

...and he wasn't edit warring. Good grief. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 18:42, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he was most certainly edit warring; if you haven't looked at the article's history, here is a snapshot:

1. JzG's initial edit.
2. My reversion.
3. JzG's reversion of my reversion - this is the beginning of an edit war.
4. Another editor's reversion of JzG's edit.
5. JzG's reversion of that editor - continuation of the edit war (now against another editor but focused on the exact same content).

That seems exceptionally clear and it follows another similar series of edits where JzG also reverted one of my reversions beginning another edit war. It's not WP:3RR but it's definitely an edit war. I'm fine with a little bit of rough-and-tumble editing but outside of special circumstances (e.g., WP:BLP, no one should be reverting another editor multiple times and if you're in an edit war with multiple editors in good standing something has gone horribly wrong. (Incidentally, this edit war has continued with other editors becoming involved so if I were still involved with this article or an uninvolved administrator I'd request or place the article in full protection.) ElKevbo (talk) 21:10, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Thank you for your work with articles about American universities. feminist (talk) 10:21, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be complete, I have brought the athletics discussion to WT:EL. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:38, 22 March 2019 (UTC)  [reply]

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for the calculation of the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:00, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done, but for future reference administrators don't have a responsibility to personally keep track of every page they've applied protection to — pages can easily just get lost in the mists of time, because the administrator who does a page protection in a vandalism incident doesn't necessarily have a reponsibility to keep a spreadsheet of every page they've ever protected so that they can go back to it X weeks later. So for future reference, please make sure you don't sound accusatory the next time you come across a similar situation — your tone should read like "hey, could you please" instead of "hey, why haven't you already". Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 02:29, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Holyoke and the rest of the seven sisters are all known as elite and prestigious. So I'm not quite sure how is that not being neutral. It's a know fact. Also, Mount Holyoke's acceptance rate is NOT 50% (this is misleading)... Mount Holyoke's acceptance rate is at 36% as it says on their website and current Facebook post. Cacti12 (talk) 22:26, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide some reliable sources about the "elite and prestigious" claims; those are very strong claims that require explicit and strong sources.

Feel free to change the acceptance rate if you can also provide a reliable source; the institution's website should be sufficient. ElKevbo (talk) 22:39, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Horry-Georgetown Technical College Logo 2019.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) 02:28, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since you've expressed an opinion on the issue in the main article about the university, thought you might want to weigh in here [3], as this threatens to spill over into every article dealing with the school. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 07:09, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GarnetAndBlack: Thanks; that's not a very visible place for that discussion. :( ElKevbo (talk) 22:27, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]