User talk:ElKevbo/Archive 25

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.

Crash Course

I see you reverted my edit in MasterClass, which is alright.

What do you think about Crash Course (YouTube)? It appears to have a full list of classes. I was wondering if there's any difference between the notability of MasterClass and Crash Course.

If the MasterClass classes are unwanted, I guess maybe the Crash Course classes should be deleted as well, based on a possible lack of sources / references / notability. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 13:23, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree in theory but that article is sufficiently different and out of my realms of expertise and experience that I'm not going to make that edit. More specifically, that article seems more line with an article about a television show or YouTube series than an educational organization with a list of courses. The norms for those kinds of articles are pretty different. ElKevbo (talk) 16:32, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Endowment thing

OK, you do your thing for a while, then I will try to make the page right. I have been adding a lot of data today, and mistakes happen. Cheers, --Smokefoot (talk) 00:03, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

@Smokefoot: Go ahead - I'm done! If you plan on reverting any of my edits, please open a discussion in Talk. ElKevbo (talk) 00:11, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I am planning to insert the dollars/enrollee table. If you have any suggestions, lets keep the conversation on the talk page. In terms of your involvement, it would be nice to have someone else interested in the page aside from me. Usually the only folks that edit are trying to puff up their fav school.--Smokefoot (talk) 00:24, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't recommend restoring that unless you can also resolve the template that you yourself added a few months ago (which probably involves checking every reference in that section). Your recent removal of public institutions from that list is also very problematic and would have to be discussed, too.

And apologies for the inadvertent edit warring and confusion earlier; I didn't see that you were also making edits at the same time. ElKevbo (talk) 00:29, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Deweyism

Thanks for the revision, didn't realize "Deweyism" is not a previously coined term. What should be done about this then: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deweyism? Also, apologies for the undo in the edits, I am getting used to Wikipedia's UI.

Tacogamer20 (talk) 00:34, 2 February 2020 (UTC)Tacogamer20

@Tacogamer20: I'm going to assume that if we have an article that's more than a few years old then the term is established so my assumption that it's a neologism is mistaken. It might be worth looking further into the history and sources cited in the article to be sure of this but I have other priorities so I'm not going to do that myself.

No worries about the revert! I think we have it all sorted out. ElKevbo (talk) 00:36, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

@ElKevbo: No, I think you are correct, "Deweyism" is not a term used outside the sole Wikipedia article I found. John Dewey himself did not use the term in his works, nor does the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Who would I talk to about renaming or deleting the "Deweyism" article? User:Tacogamer20

This is the process you'd want to use to nominate the article for deletion. I'd first look to see what material can be merged into John Dewey. ElKevbo (talk) 03:27, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

A Grammatical rejoinder

Hi there. The expression 'The Medieval University' does not refer to one, singular university but to a generic archetype. In other words, it refers to the phenomenon of the Medieval University generally not any specific instance of it. all the best. 82.27.90.157 (talk) 15:58, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I would not refer to "The Medieval University" but to "a medieval university." The former is too strong of an implication e.g., uniformity, consistent organization. ElKevbo (talk) 16:16, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Scandals

Re the latest revision to Cape Fear Community College "Scandals," the second-to-last paragraph is libelous material (against Wikipedia's policy) and a POV-statement. Many of these sources are unreputable and bias. How would you recommend trimming this down? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.85.236.234 (talk • contribs) 08:34, February 4, 2020 (UTC)

I'll look at it again but my recollection of that material isn't that it's "libelous" or that any of the sources are bad ones (I recall there really being one source that used multiple times, an investigative report by a local news channel). I recommend not using words like "libel" or "slander" in discussions as Wikipedia editors are very sensitive to perceived or potential legal threats; I don't think you're making any threats, I'm just cautioning you that some editors are very sensitive to this and our policy requires us to block editors who make legal threats.

My impression of that section of the article is that it's simply too long and detailed; some details can probably be removed or summarized to make the section shorter without altering its meaning. ElKevbo (talk) 20:28, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Abilene Christian University

On my recent edit to Abilene Christian University I inadvertently changed a bit more than I intended. Thanks for fixing it! If you sincerely did not understand my edit caption, please review the history as it should be very obvious. If you had another motivation for your edit caption, please refer to WP:CIVIL. Thanks.Jacona (talk) 13:20, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

The Cleanup Barnstar

		The Cleanup Barnstar
		As a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities, I've seen the work by ElKevbo (talk · contribs) to cleanup COI/Promotion and other general cleanup on many of the project's articles. Thanks for your dedication and diligent work! Bhockey10 (talk) 20:51, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Duke COI

For what it's worth, the bulk of the edits are coming from Singapore. This puzzled me for a few moments, until I followed one of the IPs to Duke–NUS Medical School. It may not merit a template, but I've opened a report at ANI. Thanks and cheers, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:56, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Editing from Multiple Locations

Hi,

Is it a violation of wikipedia policy to edit from different IPs? That seems quite unreasonable. People who are on the move are obviously going to be logging into the internet from different places... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.74.237.226 (talk) 06:54, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

No. But it can sometimes be confusing or concerning for other editors if they cannot easily distinguish between (a) one unregistered editor who is accidentally or incidentally using different IP addresses (which is allowed) and (b) one unregistered editors using different IP addresses to pretend to be multiple editors (which is not allowed). ElKevbo (talk) 15:15, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I'll attempt to limit my responses to the article talk page and the ANI report, but there are broader issues here, including a persistent promotional slant and no attempts by any of the accounts involved to divulge a conflict of interest. By the way, at my talk page this claim was made [1], so I'm not sure what, or who, we're asked to believe. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:28, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I have been editing from 119.74.237.226 and the other account. My intention is not to deliberately mislead anybody. I just happen to be in different places when I make my edits. When I referred to not having another account, I meant multiple named/verified accounts. I didn't realize that different IPs would be regarded as different accounts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.74.237.226 (talk) 21:32, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Phi Sigma

Hello ElKevbo. Regarding your recent edit to the University of Wisconsin-Platteville page. Thank you for that. I had just noticed that Phi Sigma group, and the error that had a Wikilink to another similarly-named society. I'd planned to make the same change today, but you got to it first. Do you have a connection with them, or was this just a random edit? Jax MN (talk) 22:57, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I have a few thousand articles on my watchlist with nearly all of them being U.S. colleges or universities. ElKevbo (talk) 01:16, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Duke Edits

ElKevbo if you would like to discuss edits to Duke University page further I'd be happy to. I do not see why adding US rankings, and comparing it to its peer schools, constitutes POV or promotion. You can look at other prestigious university pages and see that it is not uncommon.

It is perfectly normal to have rankings in the lede. Most schools' pages go into obscene amounts of detail when it comes to rankings etc. ElKevbo should no longer be allowed to edit Duke University's page if he keeps reverting properly sourced and legitimate edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.74.237.226 (talk) 05:48, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Please provide some substantive argument for why rankings do not belong in the lede of a prestigious university? Homerun93 (talk) 18:24, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

There is a long discussion of this topic here; you're welcome to join it.

But why are you insisting on including information in an article when the sources don't actually support it? ElKevbo (talk) 19:01, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

To be honest, that thread is a mess. Hundreds of comments without any consensus or clear guidelines. Do you have issue with the "often" language? A cursory glance at other universities like U of Chicago, Dartmouth, Columbia, and Princeton (literally the first 4 schools I looked up) all have a sentence regarding the school's ranking in the lede. Each of those schools include the same citations as Duke (US News, Niche, Time, CWUR).Homerun93 (talk) 00:37, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

It's insane that this user (ElKevbo) is still allowed to edit Duke's page. Just absurd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.74.237.226 (talk) 01:10, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• The reason theses stupid rankings don't be long is the five-year test (or ten-year test, or whatever it is): in five (or ten) years no one is going to care what Cornell's US News ranking is. It's like keeping IBM's article updated with its current stock price. EEng 00:54, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the "often" language was the most obvious problem with the statement as the provided sources don't support that. At best, the cited sources support a claim that each of those specific ranking systems ranked the university in a particular position in a particular year.

The broader issue is that it's trivial for Wikipedia editors to select their favorite rankings and shove them into the lede of an article to support whatever claim of prestige and importance they want to make. If the university is genuinely held in high regard by experts then surely you can find some sources that explicitly support that; there are many scholars and other experts who regularly write volumes about US higher education so high quality sources are readily available. ElKevbo (talk) 01:39, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		For dealing with all the online university nonsense that's spreading more than the virus. Natureium (talk) 00:36, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely second the thanks. Do you want to know how I was able to protect 20+ university articles so quickly yesterday? I simply followed you around, and you led me to all the hot spots! Please keep up the good work. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:53, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. This is a good distraction my normal job at the moment. I have nearly all of the articles about U.S. colleges and universities on my watchlist so it's quick and easy to see these edits and revert them if appropriate. Please let me know if I make any mistakes as I am dipping in and out of this pretty quickly right now! ElKevbo (talk) 16:11, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Fuller Theological Seminary

Hello. Could you please provide a reason for your your unexplained change to my recent edit on the Fuller Theological Seminary article. It is my understanding that articles are normally expected to include the nationality of people and organisations which are the article's subject in the opening sentence. Thank you. Afterwriting (talk) 07:25, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) For things (such as a school), we don't need to state it is "American" as that is self evident from the fact it is in California. However, you do need to state the location completely. You've omitted "United States". BTW, "American" does not mean "from the United States." It means from the Americas, either North or South. John from Idegon (talk) 10:18, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

@John from Idegon : Except that in common usage "American" nearly always is understood to actually mean "from the United States" and not just anywhere in the Americas. Which is why biographical articles about people from the "United States" (which also, to be equally pedantic, does not necessarily mean the "United States of America") are just called "American". Afterwriting (talk) 04:48, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I extend the same logic - the country is obvious from the (linked) city and state - to the (desired) omission of "United States" but if you or others disagree then I'm fine with it being added. If you feel strongly about this, note that nearly every article about a U.S. college or university also omits the country in the lede sentence. ElKevbo (talk) 12:42, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

This is only "obvious" to an American (of the USA variety). Afterwriting (talk) 04:52, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Popular Culture Section for Loyola University Maryland

Dear ElKevbo, I noticed that you took down the "In Popular Culture" section I added to Loyola MD's Wikipedia page, where I mentioned that a character on HBO's "The Wire" attended it in the drama series. I understand that it is only one example of a popular culture reference, and the reference never directly plays into the plot of the TV series; however, I included it both because "The Wire" is a well-known TV show and because I noticed that the Wikipedia page for the relevant character, Jimmy McNulty, indicates that he attended Loyola. I personally don't see the harm in including this Popular Culture section, except maybe for the fact that there is only one instance listed. if you have any more questions, please let me know. Enjoy your evening. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeoGar2 (talk • contribs) 00:49, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 5

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 15:13, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Austin College Logo.png

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:35, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

U of P

I saw your removal of the edit to the University of Pennsylvania page and the use of "U of P". While I was NOT the editor, I thought that you might like to review some of this University links that use the "U of P" term:

http://writing.upenn.edu/wh/calendar/0801.html

https://www.facilities.upenn.edu/maps/art/peace-symbol

http://dla.library.upenn.edu/dla/archives/image.html?id=ARCHIVES_20060428010&

https://archives.upenn.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/19720609fac.pdf - uses U. of P.

https://www.facilities.upenn.edu/sites/default/files/pdfs/penn_campus_map_download.pdf

https://archives.upenn.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/upb7_42.pdf

Wa3frp (talk) 03:16, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Does anyone outside of the university use the abbreviation? ElKevbo (talk) 11:46, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I could do some research in the archives of the local newspapers, ie.e the Philadelphia Bulletin and Philadelphia Inquirer, if you need that additional data.

Wa3frp (talk) 15:30, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I did some additional research in the Library of Congress ( https://www.loc.gov/ ) and found that the term "U of P" is pretty widespread, even outside of the Philadelphia area. I can send you a .pdf from the "New York Journal" from 1899 that shows that this usage is not just a recent practice. Wa3frp (talk) 17:47, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

If the abbreviation only has limited usage - historical, very local, etc. - then it shouldn't be included in the lede sentence; that shouldn't only include very prominent abbreviations that readers are likely to frequently encounter. If it's primarily of historical interest, then perhaps it's worth including in the article history section(s). ElKevbo (talk) 19:12, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Interesting retort! I show extensive usage both local and regional and you say "very local". I show usage over a period of century including recent usage and you say "historical". Why don't you just say that this is your article about Penn and that you refuse to change?? On the same note, "UPENN" is of recent origin and only since the University technical staff decided on www.upenn.edu for the Internet. Perhaps, it's worth including an article in the history section on "UPENN" as well as the "U of P"!!! Wa3frp (talk) 03:46, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

You've jumped from "editor removed one unsourced and undiscussed edit" directly to "editor owns the article and refuses to allow anyone else to edit it!" rather quickly. If you think there is sufficient evidence and this is critically important for readers then feel free to add it; I'm not terribly invested in this. ElKevbo (talk) 04:22, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

You really have become a bully here. It seems that NO justification can be made for U of P even though my citations are real. Would you like me to get something from Amy on University of Pennsylvania letterhead for you? Wa3frp (talk) 17:19, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

First, I didn't revert your edit; someone else did. Second, who is Amy? Do you have a connection to the subject of this article? ElKevbo (talk) 17:36, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

True - similar, but different, editor name. So sorry. I can assume that you have little or no affiliation with the University of Pennsylvania (Alumni, Faculty, Staff or Student). Amy is Amy Gutmann, seemingly well known both inside and outside of the University of Pennsylvania Wa3frp (talk) 18:06, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I could become "invested" in this. On secondary schools, I see "xHS" (where x= one of the 26 capitalized English letters) bolded (presumably as an alternate name) frequently. It's silly. Clearly "HHS" is not a unique identity for anything. I doubt even "XHS" would be (Xavier or Xenia?). "UofP" may be a common or even frequent name for whatever the school you're talking about, but it in no way is unique. In another region it means something different. Prime example would be "U of M". There's probably sufficient COMMONNAME argument for a redirect under that title to University of Michigan. However, people from Minnesota will forever disagree. Adding these localisms to the articles serves to confuse, not inform. John from Idegon (talk) 18:40, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I think the MOS technically requires abbreviations to be bolded in the lede when those abbreviations are also the target of redirections. But it's also become common practice to bold abbreviations for the subject of the article in the lede regardless of whether they're used as redirects; it may be legitimate to challenge that practice as out of step with the MOS or see if the MOS needs to be updated to reflect this common practice.

I can't recall any project-wide discussions of which abbreviations should or must be introduced in the lede sentence of articles about colleges, universities, or schools. If my recollection of the MOS is correct then there has been broader discussion at least of the titles of redirects. But I don't know of other explicit discussions e.g., only include contemporary abbreviations, we must include abbreviations used in that specific article. ElKevbo (talk) 17:41, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

(7/2020) Found myself reading all of this. Being curious, I typed "U of P" into BING. First up was University of Portland, then University of Penn. Bing's suggestion between the two was to look at videos for my search term. I did so. It was several rows of various videos related to University of Pennsylvania. On the surface, it seems like most of the videos come from uploader by University of Pennsylvania. (A Youtube search terms up results associated with one's past history, making it unreliable.) Google is very diverse results, depending on any University with a "P" after "of". I returned to Bing and the second search reflected the diversity of the Google search. I typed into images. First time, I got many Uni of Penn for the first few rows. Second and third searches, more variables appeared. ... This probably makes it difficult to evaluate as everyone could end up seeing different suggestions. "U of P" is likely dying out due to competition as a keyword and the school's preference for Penn. That doesn't mean that it doesn't still dominate verbally, especially regionally and w/alumni. There is evidence in older records that U of P was more widespread to associate with Penn. Maybe because of its early football history and the school's age/reputation. I grew up no where near Pennsylvania, but recall hearing people use U of P to only to mean Penn up through the early 2000s. Roxanne-snowden (talk) 22:42, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

WGU

I have no intention of editing other colleges. Brick-and-mortar schools that are well-known don't have to "worry" about being confused with for-profits. WGU is still a relatively unknown school, and wholly online, so please let the nonprofit descriptor stand. Also, if you look at the lead for Cornell, you will see it is described as a "private and statutory" Ivy League. If Cornell can be described using two terms, then WGU can be described as a "private and nonprofit" online, and indeed that has been in the lead for ~8 years. Thanks. 47.152.195.20 (talk) 17:48, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Cornell is unique in being a private institution that has a public (land-grant) component; there's even a footnote in the article that explicitly explains that. There is nothing unique about WGU's status as a private, non-profit university. Should we also clarify that it employs professors and enrolls students, too? ElKevbo (talk) 18:03, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

It is obvious that the school employs faculty and enrolls students. I contend that it is not obvious that an online school is nonprofit. How many 100% online universities can we name? How many of those are nonprofits? I contend WGU is rare in this regard. 47.152.195.20 (talk) 18:54, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Ok, that's actually a good point. ElKevbo (talk) 19:46, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding and keeping that particular clarification in the lede, ElKevbo! 47.152.195.20 (talk) 21:34, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

WT:HED discussion

Hi, as you know there is an ongoing discussion on WT:HED. I'm not bringing anything up here to discuss the issue at hand, but I do want to try and keep this WP:FUN. Your experienced contribution to the consensus is valued (by me at least, but more importantly by you I hope), however, I feel like it might help if you didn't let others make you forget what goes along with WP:CIVIL: WP:DFFWF WP:BAIT WP:COOL Shadowssettle_(talk) 23:00, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Tolerating or ignoring bullying and harassment is not a virtue. ElKevbo (talk) 22:58, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Neither is not WP:AGF. You can jump the gun and bring up personal attacks, or you can wait for people to take a breath and see how they respond Shadowssettle_(talk) 23:00, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Response to your post

My apologies if this isn't the correct way to respond; feel free to delete if it isn't.

You sent a message to me regarding disclosure as a paid writer, in reference to edits I made to the Great Oaks Career Campuses page. I believe I followed the instructions you gave me (I am an employee of Great Oaks Career Campuses, so I assume that falls under the requirement to disclose) to put that notice on my userpage. I appreciate your message, your help, and your patience as I am new to this! Thanks. Jon Weidlich (talk) 14:10, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

@Jon Weidlich: Thanks! There's a template that we use to note connected contributors who edit a specific article and I've added that to Talk:Great Oaks Career Campuses. Moving forward, I recommend caution in editing that article and others related to it; please consider posting suggestions and requests in Talk for other editors to review and implement. But otherwise I think you're good - thanks so much for understanding our approach and contributing to Wikipedia! ElKevbo (talk) 14:30, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

@ElKevbo: Thanks! I appreciate your help! 184.54.192.144 (talk) 15:03, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

The Trials of Galileo

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jacoblf#Help_me%21_%5BOTRS_Ticket_Number%5D — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacoblf (talk • contribs) 10:45, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism of Western Governors University

Please stop vandalizing the Western Governors University page. Do you have some kind of financial interest in constantly attacking the non-profit university or something? I'm just an alumni who does not like seeing people trash my school. Paul Smith111977 (talk) 12:26, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

@Paul Smith111977: First, it's quite rude to accuse someone of vandalism simply because they make edits with which you disagree. Feel free to begin a discussion and ask questions. Second, if you're an alumnus who is interested in defending the university then you need to review our policies related to conflicts of interest.

My edits weren't controversial and most were accompanied by explanations with many simply being the removal of information that isn't necessary in an encyclopedia article. I encourage you to read through our guide for college and university articles to get an idea of the kind of information that is commonly included (and excluded) in articles like this. If you have specific questions about any of my edits, please ask and I'm happy to explain. But mass-reverting another editor's edits, including many that are completely uncontroversial (e.g., consolidating duplicate sections, changing common nouns to lower case) to "defend your school" is not acceptable or productive. ElKevbo (talk) 12:47, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Rankings Suck

Is "these rankings suck" your version of an objective assessment? US News is literally the gold standard for American college rankings and has been for decades. "These rankings suck" is not a good enough reason to make an edit. PLEASE STOP VANDALIZING THE DUKE PAGE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.74.237.226 (talk) 06:21, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Actually, the US News rankings are extremely blunt and based on questionable metrics. If they're the gold standard it's only because the others are even more indefensible. EEng 06:34, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Apologies for any confusion. I was trying to say that those sources suck if you're citing them to support the statement that was added to the article. You need to find sources that actually support the statement or change the statement to match the sources; you can't cite a ranking from one year or even a few different rankings to support a sweeping claim about a long historical period. (But I would stand by a claim that the HBR "source" does indeed suck as a source used in an encyclopedia article.) ElKevbo (talk) 06:38, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

plantation/forced-labor camp

I changed "plantation" to "forced-labor camp" on Benedict College's page, and you twice changed it back, noting that you are trying to keep it neutral. The term "plantation" glosses over and does not convey the atrocities that were committed against enslaved Africans and African Americans. They are more accurately referred to as forced-labor camps because that it what they were. Enslaved people were forced to perform labor in these camps. What is a plantation supposed to mean? And this misnomer is why people hold weddings and events on these former sites, as if these are delightful places of yesteryear where kindly and benevolent masters looked after their people. Nonsense. These were forced-labor camps and should be called as such. And it is especially appropriate to call it thusly on the page of a historically black college. Please do not change my edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GregGregorino (talk • contribs) 03:23, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@GregGregorino: You don't own that article and you're not entitled to edit war to force a change into the article when another editor disagrees with you. I'll open a discussion in the article's Talk page but you need to revert your change while we hold our discussion. ElKevbo (talk) 04:04, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Sources as notability pretext

Please, can you explain that an existent university isn't notable because links? --Picklespitlizyr (talk) 23:07, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I can't explain it any better than it's already explained here. ElKevbo (talk) 23:58, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Did you read the Tower source

Just looking to confirm you actually read the source before reverting. If you had you would notice the quote come from "according to a University Communications release." Do you really think that quoting promotional material from a University press release is good editing?AlmostFrancis (talk) 16:34, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

It's not the best source - it's not peer-reviewed, scholarly material or anything of that caliber - but it's not a bad source for a claim that doesn't appear to be complex or controversial. Our policy of neutral point of view only applies to what we write; sources aren't required to be strictly neutral or objective. Self-published sources are also acceptable in some circumstances.

But if you think there is a serious problem, feel free to raise the issue on the article's Talk page so we can get input from other editors. ElKevbo (talk) 16:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I added some context and there is a discussion at RSN so I will just let that play out. Reading below it looks like you are not having the best of days, sorry about being more direct that necessary and adding to your stress. AlmostFrancis (talk) 23:35, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

No worries! I appreciate you asking and letting me know about the discussion at RSN. ElKevbo (talk) 02:27, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

ANI

Hi there. I just came across your complaint at ANI and wanted to let you know that this IP 89.159.44.130 has been blocked by Future Perfect at Sunrise. I have put your page on my watchlist, so if you are further bothered about this topic on-wiki, I am ready to take some action. We might also establish an edit filter to avoid related edits like the refspamming. De728631 (talk) 16:58, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I second that. I, too, have added your talk page to my watchlist, and I, too, am ready and able to take decisive action to curtail any further harassment. Please don't hesitate to also drop me a line if the need arises. Best, El_C 17:22, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much! ElKevbo (talk) 17:40, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

ElKevbo, while I can't speak for others, I would like to apologize for the initial response you received at ANI. It was unacceptable.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:56, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks; I appreciate that. ElKevbo (talk) 18:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Hey, I turned the thread around for you. But do I get any credit? Noooooooo! EEng 03:53, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

The off wiki harassment you experienced is horrible. Sorry to hear you went through that. Cbl62 (talk) 00:05, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. At least it's not as bad as the one time that someone thought it appropriate to report me to the state attorney general and the governor... ElKevbo (talk) 02:29, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Yikes, that is harassment on a truly extended level. I hope it was a one-and-only incident on that scale of escalation. De728631 (talk) 13:56, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

To update, I found consensus for a community ban for a individual who harassed you. [2] starship.paint (talk) 03:44, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

@Ponyo and El C: - as JzG has inactive in the last few days, could one of you take a look at the other IPs JzG raised [3] which may be the same individual who has been community banned? Thanks. starship.paint (talk) 03:47, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Starship.paint, the edits from those IPs are now Stale, so I don't think any action is needed. El_C 06:05, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 10

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:19, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Do I have a connection to HES?

Sure, I'm editing its Wiki page ;) RedWhiteandMaroon (talk) 19:29, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I read the policies and am not paid/conflicted in any way. Just doing my part to create a neutral, informed article about education. RedWhiteandMaroon (talk) 20:23, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you

for all the good work that you do here! After reading some of your recent, thoughtful comments on the talk page, I also just wanted to stop by and confirm that there is no more mention of "history, influence, wealth, and academic reputation" in the lead of the Harvard University article after we worked to address Drevolt's concerns. I wish you the best in your research on higher education! It is such an important topic. RedHotPear (talk) 03:13, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

The vandalism of resentful hoi polloi. EEng 03:19, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

NPOV dispute in University of the Potomac

You reverted on 23 May 2020 an edit I made a few hours previously, deleting all but three words and citing NPOV. I revised that edit on 22 June 2020 to be more strictly NPOV. In particular, the text said that the University is owned by an LLC, the LLC does not disclose its beneficial owners, and that it is a for-profit corporation. These are facts and important facts for understanding university governance. In a second sentence I listed (and cited to) one of the only publicly disclosed connections to its corporate structure: a board member whose bio says he's part of the LLC's board. I then quoted from the board member's biography, using quotes.

You're giving the impression that you have a POV that is protective of for-profit colleges' ownership, because you are citing as NPOV what are merely straight facts.

I spent time carefully editing for NPOV the comment after your reversion, and you completely reverted my new edits. Care to reinstate and edit instead of wholesale reverting? Shouldn't you be following Wikipedia:Restoring_part_of_a_reverted_edit? Thanks.

Fair shot for all02 (talk) 03:01, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

My apologies; WP:NPOV is not the only policy at play here and I should have been more clear. I'm also concerned about WP:OR. If the information you've written is noteworthy and something that should be included in an encyclopedia article then you'll need to find where others have already written about it so you can cite them. We rarely use primary sources. ElKevbo (talk) 03:17, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

university of the people

Hey ElKevbo, I wrote to you in the discussion of the university of the people. Please answer to the question there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.65.190.112 (talk) 08:27, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

College and University Rankings

I have edited the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/College_and_university_rankings to include College Consensus, a new US college ranking aggregate that combines the top publisher rankings as well as student rankings to offer prospective students a comprehensive assessment of the nation's schools. My edit has been removed twice. I have looked over the edit and linking guidelines and cannot find a reason for the removal. Could you provide some insight? Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CTaylor16 (talk • contribs) 21:46, July 1, 2020 (UTC)

I apologize if the reasons for my reverts have not been clear. In general, anyone who wants to add new ranking systems to that article need to provide evidence that those systems are noteworthy and something that merits inclusion in an encyclopedia article. That usually means that we're looking for independent sources that attest to the importance or noteworthiness of the ranking system beyond the claims of the people associated with it or self-serving claims by institutions favorably ranked by it. Information in the article doesn't need to meet our standard of notability but that policy might provide you with some good guidance and ideas about what we typically mean when we talk about independent, high quality sourcing and evidence.

Additionally, if you would like to object that there is a lot of material already in the article that doesn't meet this standard then I would completely agree with you! The article could really use some editing to either add good, independent sources or remove information that can't be supported by those kind of sources. It would be a lot of work to do well and consistently and I'm simply unwilling and unable to engage in that work right now. But holding the line at "no new additions that don't include good sources" is something I can do; it's not perfect but it's a start. ElKevbo (talk) 03:01, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) CTaylor16, I'm very active in the other Wikiproject that covers educational institutions, Wikiproject Schools, which covers secondary schools. We discount any poll or rating that includes a reader feadback aspect to the rankings. To have a component like that violates WP:RS in my, and many other editors eyes. ElKevbo may disagree. That's how Wikipedia works! John from Idegon (talk) 07:13, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I completely disagree as other publishers and authors are definitely not beholden to our policies and standards. Nor does WP:RS say anything about disallowing sources that use reader feedback as a primary source; I think that is a fundamental misunderstanding of that policy that confuses the common definition and meaning of "reliable" with the much more narrow meaning that constitutes our policy.

Welcome to Wikipedia! :) ElKevbo (talk) 07:21, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

University System of Georgia

Hi. About the University System of Georgia, the system classifies UGA, Georgia Tech, Georgia State, and Augusta University as research universities [4]. Kennesaw State University is classified as a comprehensive university. I think you should refer to the official classification or at least clarify how these are classified. To be noted, Carnegie Classification is a way of classification just based on their own definition. For example, do you ever call an outstanding health science university NOT research university, e.g. UCSF, Baylor College of Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, etc? If you still want to follow the Carnegie’s, why don’t you add Georgia Southern University that is classified as R2 by Carnegie’s and say “The system is home to six research universities, …”? Your edits seem to be done by inadequate search and inconsistent. Please fix these and the page of Augusta University. I just noticed this in the page of University System of Georgia, but if you did the same things in other pages, I would fix those too.(Xcrex (talk) 19:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC))

This - there may be a discrepancy between how the system and how the Carnegie Classification system classify "research" universities and we need to be clear in the article - is a great point. The articles need to be clear and if there is a discrepancy then we should include both classifications. I'll work on this when I get a chance but feel free to dig into it yourself if you get to it before I do. ElKevbo (talk) 20:04, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

University Washington

Hi, what's wrong with the Greater Seattle technology area description. Thanks Inukabear (talk) 19:45, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

It's unnecessary in the lede of that article. The article is about the university, not the location, and the lede must focus on the university. ElKevbo (talk) 20:39, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

The article is about University, thus it's necessary and IMPERATIVE for a neutral and reliable information about the university, background, history, academic, programs, including relevant location information for readers to accurately UNDERSTAND about the university. If we keep those true but irrelevant information, readers always wonder 'what does that mean'? And how it fails the objectives & integrity of real encyclopedia. Hence donations, users' credibility & readers perception about Wikipedia have been dissipating. Wide range of industry experts, media and organizations have compared Wikipedia content like 'a primary-grade kids' descriptions. Please acknowledge & rectify, thanks. Inukabear (talk) 04:57, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Yet the context must focus on the university, not some irrelevant description & terminologies Inukabear (talk) 05:00, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I recommend raising this in the article's Talk page; you may get response from other editors who have opinions different from mine. ElKevbo (talk) 05:55, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Please do. However why do we need to keep debating about this. I think we are principally in consensus, just perceptions & updating knowledge. Appreciate it. Inukabear (talk) 10:48, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Olive Stone

Olive Stone taught briefly at the University of Montevallo, then known as Alabama College before becoming a dean at Women's College (now Huntingdon College. She acquired her PhD from University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The source I provided, Hammer and Hoe, explains in further detail. You can also see on the University of Montevallo's archive website that she is listed as a faculty member in a bulletin [5]. Please leave my edit alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KyleRobles (talk • contribs) 00:08, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

@KyleRobles: Don't tell other editors to "leave [your] edit alone." You don't own any article and anyone can edit what you contribute to articles.

When you get a moment, can you please add this information to Stone's article? It appears to be missing from there and it would be a good addition. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 00:23, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

@ElKevbo: Don't remove valid edits without doing your own research. Thanks. KyleRobles (talk) 00:28, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Was that before or after he made Natural Born Killers? EEng 01:57, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

What an unpleasant, unreasonable, and uncivil response to a very simple and collegial request! A simple "yes, this is indeed the case" would have been perfectly sufficient. And it's entirely reasonable to have asked about this fact since it's not included in the subject's own article, a fact that you are apparently don't even care to add to that article to improve this project and ensure this confusion doesn't occur in the future. ElKevbo (talk) 22:18, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Barnard College shuttle service - Why did you delete?

Hello - why did you delete the Shuttle Service section of the Barnard article? Best, MTATransitFan (Questions? Comments? Just want to chat? Click here) 15:25, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

@MTATransitFan: Because we don't need that level of detail in that article (or any others). It's an encyclopedia article that has to summarize the entire history, organization, funding, and accomplishments - good and bad - of a complex organization that is over a century old. This level of detail is inappropriate and out-of-line with not only our general guidelines about what to include in articles but also the specific advice for articles about colleges and universities.

More importantly, it's absolutely flabbergasting that you've begun an edit war over this issue. Please revert your reversion while we discuss this. ElKevbo (talk) 15:55, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

UNLV

UNLV is simply not a land grant institution - it does not have an agricultural school, cooperative extension, nor is it recognized as such by the USDA. The page as it stands is incorrect and should be reverted. Nowhere in Nevada Revised Statutes has UNLV ever been granted that status - that is the only place by law (not AG opinion) where that can occur. The sole land grant university within Nevada, created under the Morrill Act and authorized pursuant to Article 11 of the Nevada Constitution is the University of Nevada, Reno. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:1984:3A00:9CBB:E145:809D:AE18 (talk) 06:07, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

@2600:8801:1984:3A00:9CBB:E145:809D:AE18:You have to provide sources to support your view if we are going to change the article. Zoozaz1 (talk) 15:07, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Re-read the above talk post; UNLV may have co-equal status as a doctoral degree granting institution, but again: UNLV has no agricultural program, it doesn't have cooperative extension, it doesn't have an experimentation station, and further, its establishment more than a century after the Morrill Act should make that clear. The listed sources are second-hand; for one, an AG opinion is just that - it's an opinion. Codified law (Nevada Revised Statutes) is what dictates. AB 407 (2017) attempted to make such a change, but was VETOED by Governor Sandoval for numerous fiduciary and compliance based reasons - (https://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/79th2017/Reports/VetoMessages/AB407_79th_VetoMessage.pdf). With so many inaccuracies, there's no need to even mention it or reference it at this point - by now, this should be pretty self-evident. Corresponding changes must be made.

University at Buffalo

Hi The other user keep saying University at Buffalo is the flagship university of NY. That is not true. He uses a 01/10/2008 source stating endorsement from Governor Spitzer. That is not the whole story. First of all it is an endorsement, not a official declaration by the state. Second he endorsed two flagship universities 1) Buffalo and 2) Stony Brook; (“The result, he said, would be a transformation of New York's public higher education system into one of the best in the country and the creation of preeminent SUNY flagship universities at UB and Stony Brook.”02/14/2008). But the plan to make both those institutions flagships of NY state never materialized; (“ Before leaving office, former New York governor, Eliot Spitzer declared both Stony Brook University and the University at Buffalo as flagship institutes that would propel in research and would bring about economic development. However, with the new administration in place, the future of the whole SUNY system, including Stony Brook, is on hold.” 09/18/2008). Officially SUNY.edu and the SUNY doesn’t recognize any flagship institution. Therefore it is false and misrepresentation to call UB flagship.

References

University of the People

Hi, I am an employee at University of the People. I noticed that a few back-and-forth changes were made regarding WASC on the UoPeople Wikipedia page. University of the People was indeed approved for eligibility of accreditation by WASC: https://www.uopeople.edu/student-experience/quality/accreditation/ If you would like me to send you the official approval by WASC as a source, I would be happy to to that.--93.173.113.214 (talk) 11:20, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think there is a question about the veracity of the claim, just whether it needs to be included in the article and, if so, where and with what wording. ElKevbo (talk) 14:28, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I think it would be valuable to add in the WASC information in the name of transparency because regional accreditation is highly beneficial. Maybe to add the formal wording as suggested by WASC: WSCUC reviewed UoPeople’s eligibility application and determined that the institution is eligible to proceed with an Application for Accreditation. A determination of Eligibility is not a formal status with the WASC Senior College and University Commission, nor does it ensure eventual accreditation. It is a preliminary finding that the institution is potentially accreditable and can proceed within five years of its Eligibility determination to be reviewed for Candidacy or Initial Accreditation status with the Commission. Questions about Eligibility may be directed to the institution or to WSCUC at https://www.wscuc.org/contact or (510) 748-9001. --93.173.113.214 (talk) 14:30, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

We're not here to promote the university. If the institution is successful then of course accreditation is important information to have in an article. But "the university is working on accreditation" isn't very useful or interesting information for readers of a general encyclopedia. ElKevbo (talk) 14:46, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

The reason I am suggesting to mention WASC is that being eligible for accreditation is, in and of itself, an official status. This status was achieved after a process of many years and an evaluation by the WASC accreditation committee. WASC specifically encourages universities with this status to declare it, because being "eligible to proceed with an Application for Accreditation" says a lot about the legitimacy of the institution. At the end of the day, it is your call whether or not to include this information. I only wanted to provide context for why this would be valuable and useful information to the readers of the page. --93.173.113.214 (talk) 09:41, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

"A determination of Eligibility is not a formal status with the WASC Senior College and University Commission (emphasis added)." ElKevbo (talk) 11:19, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Okay thank you for your input, I respect your decision not to include WASC. I would just like to mention, though, that the UoPeople Wikipedia page mentions that the university does not have regional accreditation. Is this not strange? As far as I am aware, pages generally mention what accreditation universities DO have, and they don't mention what they don't have. I was just wondering whether or not this is according to Wikipedia guidelines? Also, as of July 1st 2020, there is no longer a distinction between national and regional accreditation ( https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/education-postsecondary/news/2020/02/11/480338/accreditation-reform-act-2020/ ). My last concern is that I see on the UoPeople page, there is a warning at the top from March 2020 stating that "This article contains content that is written like an advertisement" and "Some of this article's listed sources may not be reliable". I was just wondering if you know why this is happening, and how can we make sure the page is seen as legitimate and accurate. If you are not sure, who do we take this up with? Thank you for your time. --93.173.113.214 (talk) 12:55, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Good points about the "doesn't have regional accreditation" statement in the article; it's unnecessary and I've removed it.

I'll take a look at the rest of the article and see if those templates are still warranted. I didn't place them in the article so I don't know exactly why there're there or if they're still appropriate. ElKevbo (talk) 16:53, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

That's great, thanks a lot for that! One more thing, under the "Rankings" section there is a link. I think that ranking site is specifically ranking web presence and not the actual university. It may be worthwhile to specify that in the section. What do you think? 93.173.113.214 (talk) 13:32, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Hey, ElKevbo. I appreciate your balanced, fair take over on the UoPeople article and talk page, so I would like to ask for your thoughts on my recent contributions on the talk page. You're more experienced with the ins and outs of Wikipedia (new editor, long-term reader here). I am attempting to tie the evaluation of the source to Wikipedia's policies, but I wanted the thoughts of a more experienced, balanced editor. Thanks! WriteWithPencils (talk) 22:32, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Ongoing Request for Comment

Hi @ElKevbo: I've just opened a higher education Request for Comment about the use of "public" or "state-related" in the lead and infobox of universities in the Commonwealth System of Higher Education. Since you were the one to open the previous RfC on the University of Pittsburgh page, I thought that it would be a good idea to let you know about it. You can find the RfC here, please let me know if you have any thoughts about the way that I worded the RfC or ways that I could improve it. --Drevolt (talk) 02:33, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

@Drevolt: I notified everyone who participated in the previous RfC. I distrust the judgement of most of those editors - most of them got it wrong in the previous RfC - but they should know about this and have the opportunity to weigh in on this new RfC. ElKevbo (talk) 01:04, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@ElKevbo: Sounds like the right move, thanks for letting me know. --Drevolt (talk) 01:24, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

For-profit colleges pretending to be accredited

You appear to be knowledgable about editing pages for universities. I've noticed that pages for universities which offer degrees that are not accredited by anyone are still described as accredited, thus misleading readers into thinking these are entirely legitimate universities and that they are getting degrees that are valuable. I noticed this on the Concord Law School page[6] and also Kaplan University which is described as "regionally accredited by the Higher Learning Commission" (the same wording as on the Concord Law School page), despite offering degrees which professional bodies do not recognize.[7] This seems very serious, and I'm wondering if you're aware of any WikiProjects or editors I could notify as part of an effort to fix this. Also pinging User:Neutrality who might be knowledgable about these issues. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:15, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, for example, specifically lists several universities at the bottom of this page whose nutrition programs they do not accredit[8]. It might be a good starting point to check the pages for those colleges, and see how RS cover their accreditation. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:19, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't know about these specific institutions and programs but it is entirely possible for an institution to be accredited by an institutional accreditor - who we used to refer as either regional or national accreditors - but have specific programs that aren't accredited by their specific accreditors. Sometimes that is a problem but sometimes it's not. For example, at least one state - California - does not require people to have graduated from an ABA-accredited program to sit for the state bar so it's not necessarily a problem for law schools in California to not be ABA accredited. And there are some programs where programmatic accreditation is genuinely optional with few or no licensing implications e.g., business schools can select from a few different accreditors or opt to not be accredited at all with no legal repercussions for programs like business administration.

We tend to shy away from saying what an institution is not as that is both an endless list and it can easily be POV or OR. Another way to think about this is that if it's important enough to write in an encyclopedia article that an institution is not part of an organization then surely we can find a reliable source that explicitly says that. ElKevbo (talk) 23:38, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 26

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lawrence University, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Conservatory.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Re: Liberty University

I replied to your comment on my talk page, if you didn't get the ping. 00:56, 29 August 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prauls901 (talk • contribs)

New York Chiropractic College

All of the information that was presented was sourced from the IPEDS database. IS there a different format that you would like to see? This information is all sourced from the same database you are using and is presented in a neutral point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:1009:E068:50D0:EA25:4174:A62 (talk) 16:14, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

It's just way too much information that is too detailed. See WP:UNIGUIDE to see what information we usually include articles about colleges and universities. You can also look at the Featured Articles that are about colleges and universities to see how information is included in the very best articles. ElKevbo (talk) 16:35, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Content dispute between EEng and me

I think User:EEng is trying to troll me. Is there a way to stop that kind of behavior? Ber31 (talk) 03:34, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

@Ber31: If you have a substantial amount of evidence that he or she is violating policies or otherwise causing substantive problems, this is the catch all noticeboard to ask for help from administrators. If you believe that he or she is violating a specific policy, there may be a more specific noticeboard e.g., edit warring. You could also try asking a specific administrator for help on his or her Talk page; I'd look in the recent editing history of the specific article and its Talk page to see if there is an administrator who has recently edited there and might have some familiarity with the topic or this specific editor. ElKevbo (talk) 05:28, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. This is a giant encyclopedia. Thank you for informing me about the noticeboards. I asked CaptainEek for help. I also started a discussion at Talk:Harvard University: Talk:Harvard_University#Disruptive_editing_by_EEng. Ber31 (talk) 05:46, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I am changing the title of this thread to "Content dispute between EEng and me". The issue has been resolved. Thank you. Ber31 (talk) 02:07, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Enrollment declines and faculty layoffs

I saw that you often edit articles about colleges. I added some content yesterday to the Ithaca College article about the fact that they have announced that they will be laying off 130 out of 547 faculty positions because of enrollment declines and the budget shortfalls that go along with enrollment declines. (What I added is currently the 4th para in the intro section). It wouldn't take long to find similar content about (probably) dozens of other colleges. I expect the trend to continue. Reflecting on this made me think that it might not be a bad idea to have a standard way of incorporating this type of information into an article about a college (perhaps a standard section) and standard placement within the article. (I'm not convinced for example that what I added yesterday really belongs in the intro.) I also wonder about an overall overview article and thought I would reach out to you for your views on any of this. Thanks so much. Novellasyes (talk) 19:37, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Some examples:

• Layoffs at U of Delaware
• Marquette in Wisconsin; deep layoffs

@Novellasyes: Good question/suggestion! To the best of my knowledge, there are very few institutions for whom these events are so existentially threatening that they warrant inclusion in the lede; for most of us, this will be a very painful 3-5 years but we'll make it.

But many institutions are being seriously impacted and it is appropriate to note that in the article. We shouldn't go into a lot of detail about breaking news or place too much emphasis on one series of events but if there is concrete information about significant impacts (e.g., large budget deficits, significant changes to employment or services) then a sentence or two would be appropriate. For most articles, I imagine this would go best in the "History" section but an argument could be made for an "Organization" or "Funding" section if one exists.

I also think it would be very important to include relevant context. For example, it would not be helpful for readers to just say that the institution has a budget deficit of $x million and has laid off y staff and z faculty members. We'd need to include some of the context e.g., the institution's fall enrollment fell by x students and conducted some/most/all classes online in the fall/spring semester(s) which resulted in $y million dollars in missed revenue and $z million dollars in new costs. It might also be helpful to say a little something about those missed revenues and new costs, too.

Does that make sense? Should we collaborate to draft a few examples? ElKevbo (talk) 02:26, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes! It would be great to collaborate on a few examples and maybe some preliminary guidelines etc etc. Would we do that best by creating a sandbox off of one of our user names...or is there some other way to do that? I have a feeling this would take some weeks to mull over and keep refining. Novellasyes (talk) 13:27, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

A sandbox would be fine. I also recommend we avoid using the University of Delaware as one of our examples; I currently work there so have a conflict of interest. ElKevbo (talk) 15:01, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Oh yikes, sorry about that! I will start a sandbox in a day or two and come back here and put in the link to it. Novellasyes (talk) 15:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I started working on this: User:Novellasyes/sandbox/Information about faculty layoffs and enrollment declines. Feel free to edit that as if it were any old article. Novellasyes (talk) 14:32, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

--Drevolt (talk) 03:07, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 25

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Teachers College, Columbia University, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New York.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:29, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Purdue School of Engineering

Nominating something for lack of cited references is a bit harsh. Putting the cart before the horse. Ask for citations. Ask for expert input. There is no pride in a notching your belt based on how many article deletions you instigated. I’ve been involved in several articles where people felt the same way you did, I commented the same way on AfD and the article was never deleted. In fact, other editors rallied around, addressed the issue(s) raised by the nomination and in the end, said they felt the article should never have been nominated in the first place. But go ahead and nominate it if you want. I only hope the same thing happens this time. ThurstonMitchell (talk) 19:23, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate your advice but it's a bit condescending. It's not about how I "feel" (or, more specifically, how you think I feel) - it's about what is in the current article. The onus is on those who believe the subject is notable to prove it and right now there is no proof in the article.

In any case, I welcome you and others improving the article to make its notability explicit. ElKevbo (talk) 20:23, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

2020-10-25

On Knowledge.

You are right that content removal falls not under speedy deletion but instead under Wikipedia:Deletion_policy.

Please understand that:

1. There was a source reference, therefore the reason for original deletion was false.

2. The content itself is basic, short, clear, and similar to the standard of other sections on the page currently.

3. The intention to have an encyclopedic summary of "using knowledge" is very appropriate for the page in my eyes.

4. Before your edit, I have already started a section on the article talk page for open discussion.

5. Saving information seems like the good-guys side to me, but that's from my inclusionist Wikipedia philosophy.

Is it truly net positive for there to be so much friction to adding reasonably good content to Wikipedia?

I know there's a lot of junk that gets posted where reasonable bold content deletion occurs, but we're going to lose efficiency in the pursuit of perfection! When the average user stumbles upon the page, would they be better off having the option of reading a particular section?

Openyk (talk) 22:20, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Please find and add a source for the material you'd like to add to the article. Only the first paragraph of what you added was sourced; the rest was not. If that source was meant to apply to all of the material, please make that clear for readers. ElKevbo (talk) 22:56, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Regarding your unwaranted deletion

The sources are clear and relevent. They are scholarly articles and books on the topic of surveillance ethics, which intimate that the kind of mass surveillance the Confucius Institute is accused of propagating are inevitably linked to the intimidation of the target population. Additionally, the matter has already been dealt with via talk pages, so your request for me to do so is confusing. I have restored the article to it's proper form as the citations are clearly relevent and peer reviewed. GrandmasterLiuHu (talk) 13:22, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

@GrandmasterLiuHu: You've begun an edit war and most of your sources don't even mention the subject of the article that you're editing. ElKevbo (talk) 13:40, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

You also haven't posted anything in the article's Talk page. ElKevbo (talk) 13:41, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

The sources all explicitly discuss the intricacies of surveillance and intimidation. They are explicit, related to the subject at hand, and very clear. If you continue to declare "Edit wars", you'll find out quickly that Wikipedia moderators are objective. GrandmasterLiuHu (talk) 13:45, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I strongly recommend you review WP:RGW; beginning edit wars to insert blatant original research and then threatening experienced editors is unlikely to result in the outcomes that you'd like. ElKevbo (talk) 13:48, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

To be clear, threatening any editors is unlikely to result in the desired outcome. EEng 14:01, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Notice of No Original Research Noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. GrandmasterLiuHu (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:04, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the copyvio cleanup on UW-Platteville

When you see something that blatant, please consider slapping a {{copyvio-revdel}} template on it, as I did here. This will alert admins, one of them will come along and WP:Revision delete the copyrighted revisions. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:14, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 18:22, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Stanton Friedman

Hi. Can you explain this[9] revert? It isn't wise to have lengthy details on a conspiracy theorist on the main page of UChicago. Ber31 (talk) 04:30, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I've shorten details on Stanton Friedman.[10] That should settle the issue. Ber31 (talk) 05:07, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Cool. Looks good. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 05:19, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:13, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Warning/Editing Suggestions For You

Hi There, It looks like you made an incorrect, but good intent edit. For more information on the hierarchy of American universities, please see US News and World Report Best College Rankings. For quick a summary: 1. Princeton University (NJ) 2. Harvard University (MA) 3. Columbia University (NY)

Other notables: Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MA) Yale University (CT) Stanford University (CA) University of Chicago (IL)

These, especially numbers 1, 2, and 3 above, are typically considered the best. If you have any other further questions surrounding this topic please feel free to reach out to me. 68.199.120.122 (talk) 00:57, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Huh? ElKevbo (talk) 01:25, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Why removing bold and italic headings from University of Puerto Rico at Mayagüez

Explain me why are not allowed bold and itallic headings to identify names. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haroldomil (talk • contribs) 23:15, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Please see MOS:BOLD and MOS:ITALICS. ElKevbo (talk) 23:18, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

@Haroldomil: Please stop readding bold, italics, and external links to the article; we have multiple policies against this e.g., MOS:BOLD, MOS:ITALICS, WP:EL. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 14:45, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

ElKevbo: thanks for The links to style manuals.

About bold usage, I will agree with you.

About italics usage, I had checked the style manuals and titles of events and organization are correctly allowed to be put on italics by fact of are foreign language words. Please remember that not all users of English Wikipedia are Puerto Ricans or Americans living in Puerto Rico. There are local events and student organization on UPRM unknown for majority of English Wikipedia users.

Submit me examples of aproved Wikified articles about universities in United States and its territories. Of course, I am graduated from UPRM, I know first- hand the matter on unicersity life. Haroldomil (talk) 16:57, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I recommend looking at this list of Featured Articles and this list of Good Articles associated with the higher education Wikiproject; some of them are specifically about universities and are good examples. ElKevbo (talk) 18:20, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Good Articles in higher education Wikipedia project had some USA universities wikipages with direct links to Official Page's section related to Student Organizations.

Your idea of keep simple as possible the University of Puerto Rico Mayagüez Campus must not crash the inclusion of helpful information about the institution for general English Wikipedia users. Haroldomil (talk) 20:58, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't quite understand you. If you're saying that some articles include lists of student organizations, you are correct; we are not as consistent in this as we should be and many other articles need improvement, too. I also recommend looking at our guide to what should be included in articles about colleges and universities and our policy about what to not include in articles. ElKevbo (talk) 00:19, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I read the wikimanual about colleges and universities articles and checked WP:UNIGUIDE WP:EXT WP:YELLOWPAGES where I discovered your concern reasons about changes on UPRM articles. That's good seeking standarizing articles about colleges and universities to meet Wikipedia standards.

But, standars do not be so authoritary if prevent improving articles with facts or sources that help readers. Of fact, Wikipedia encourage that for improvement with contents we consider useful and relevant to topic in WP:IGNORE and WP:BOLD.

I am glad for the sources that you provided me! Thanks.

Haroldomil (talk) 17:12, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I checked WP:UNIGUIDE WP:EXT WP:YELLOWPAGES where I discovered your concern reasons about changes on UPRM articles. That's good seeking standarizing articles about colleges and universities to meet Wikipedia standards.

But, standards do not be so authoritative if prevent improving articles with facts or sources that help readers. Of fact, Wikipedia encourage that for improvement with contents we consider useful and relevant to topic in WP:IGNORE and WP:BOLD

Thanks for all useful guides you had provided me! Keep the good job! Haroldomil (talk) 17:18, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

List of presidents

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

---

Hi Kevin, there are many lists of university presidents on Wikipedia (not all of them sourced):

List of presidents of Washington College

List of presidents of Washington and Lee University

List of presidents of Cornell University

List of presidents of Columbia University

List of presidents of Tufts University

List of presidents of Southern University

So what was wrong with my list on Texas A&M University–Texarkana? 97.98.114.69 (talk) 05:31, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Those are stand-alone list articles; they're very different from embedded lists and deleting any of them would be a very different discussion.

I don't think that, in most cases, lists of previous college and university presidents included as embedded lists are not helpful for readers. This is especially true when they're bare lists with no accompanying context or explanation. It's simply not informative to list a bunch of people without any explanation of their significance. And it's unnecessary to reassure readers that a particular college or university has had presidents in the past who preceded the current president; that's a safe assumption that can be omitted.

It's sometimes helpful to turn the question around and ask: How is this information useful to readers? What exactly are they supposed to learn from it?

I think this has been briefly discussed at WT:UNI but I think it was a brief, informal discussion without a formal resolution. ElKevbo (talk) 05:49, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that lists of university presidents are relevant and informative, and should be allowed (whether embedder or stand alone). Think of somebody who graduated 30 years ago, who does not remember who was the president when (s)he started taking classes, but finds this information on Wikipedia.

See these lists of presidents at: Howard University, Gallaudet University, Cheyney Univ. of PA embedded in the main article, just like I did for Texas A&M University–Texarkana.

Creating stand-alone list-articles (of presidents, notable alumni or faculty) is justified when entries are too many (which is the case with most old and well established universities). Shall we wait 100 years to allow a list of TAMUT presidents? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.98.114.69 (talk) 17:07, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

How exactly are they "relevant and informative?" What information, other than "this institution has had presidents," does a list without any other context or explanation provide to readers? How is a reader's understanding of the institution improved by a listing of names and dates that only convey that the institution indeed had presidents during those particular years? ElKevbo (talk) 17:34, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

You didn't touch the lists of president on Howard University, Gallaudet University, Cheyney Univ. of PA, and I think I know why. So I am going to restore the list that you deleted off Texas A&M University–Texarkana. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.98.114.69 (talk) 17:43, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Assume good faith, please. One editor can't edit every article or make every change that should be made, especially in a limited amount of time. And I don't work for you - I'm a volunteer here like everyone else. ElKevbo (talk) 18:57, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Gramar

Hi Kevin, I think you have a double negation problem: "I don't think that, in most cases, lists of previous college and university presidents included as embedded lists are not helpful for readers." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.98.114.69 (talk) 19:59, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Hah! You're absolutely right. Thanks! :) ElKevbo (talk) 20:15, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Hamilton College Endowment

You reverted my edit with the comment "I don't see any information there to support the accusation that this source includes pledged funds anyway". Check the source: it very clearly states "Endowment and Planned Gifts (June 2019): $1,017,291,220". Also, take a look at the version you reverted to - the citation is an ugly mess. You're right that endowments are complicated; colleges often include arguable amounts to boost the figure. For that reason I value NACUBO's figures: they standardize the formula to allow meaningful apples-to-apples comparisons among institutions. I'm not going to edit war, but think you're in the wrong on this one and would appreciate the reinstatement of NACUBO's version. Thanks. Contributor321 (talk) 20:41, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks; I missed that somehow even though I explicitly searched for it (incorrectly, apparently)!

I'm happy to fix the citation but I think it's still valid. I don't know exactly how NACUBO collects their data - I know it's done through surveys so it's self-reported but I don't know the exact instructions and definitions it uses - but in my experience it's incredibly common for institutions to include pledged gifts in reporting their finances. I suspect this is common in most or all industries and a regular practice in particular for non-profits who often receive money through vehicles that are deferred in some way (long ago in a previous life, I helped a non-profit review records of wills of people who had left money to the organization). We see this in the press on the rare occasions when large donors back out of their commitments and institutions have to publicly "correct" their figures.

So without having looked at - I don't know if we even have access to this - the NACUBO instructions and definitions I don't think we can say that pledged gifts are excluded from the data they collect and publish. In general, I think that many people place a lot of faith in data published second-hand that are based on self-reported data (e.g., much or all of IPEDS data are collected from surveys of institutions) that are not frequently or ever audited.

Does that make sense? ElKevbo (talk) 20:54, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

High quality, reliable sources

I saw the changes you made to my additions to the "Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Education" article. Given the content being included (university student experience), I don't think my source was poor, however I can understand why a student newspaper source can raise questioning. Along with my original source, I will be incorporating these sources to support the statement.

https://www.epi.org/publication/the-consequences-of-the-covid-19-pandemic-for-education-performance-and-equity-in-the-united-states-what-can-we-learn-from-pre-pandemic-research-to-inform-relief-recovery-and-rebuilding/

https://www.edutopia.org/article/covid-19s-impact-students-academic-and-mental-well-being — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sguag1 (talk • contribs) 18:04, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

@Sguag1: In general, opinion pieces like the student newspaper piece you cited aren't good sources for encyclopedia articles unless the person or organization that holds that opinion is notable. This is especially true in areas where there is an abundance of high quality research and scholarship; for those topics, we should be citing that material and not opinion pieces, low quality research, and subjective opinions. ElKevbo (talk) 18:30, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

University of the People - Page Issues

Hi, I have introduced myself to you before, I am an employee at University of the People. You may remember you helped me in the past when there were inaccurate edits to the page.

Since you were so helpful on that issue, I’m hoping to consult with you about a new issue: I recently checked the University of the People Wikipedia page and I noticed some odd edits. These changes were made by an individual who has only ever edited the University of the People page, I found no other editing history from that profile.

The edits that this individual made seem one-sided and biased. Additionally, they have cited some untrustworthy sources (as I’m sure you are aware, given your feedback in the “Israel sources” section of the Talk page). I also noticed that another user keeps undoing these odd edits, but the first user keeps coming back to change them again.

The University of the People Wikipedia page has had some similar activity happen back in 2017, if I’m not mistaken. The user was then blocked from Wikipedia. The recent edits are misleading, and I’m wondering if you have any advice or thoughts on how to deal with this situation?

Looking forward to your feedback, thanks --KieraLewison (talk) 15:26, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Two suggestions come to mind. First, you can raise questions and make suggestions in the article's Talk page. I think you're best off if you raise specific questions followed by specific suggestions; that makes it easier for other editors to implement the suggestions if they think they're reasonable. Second, if you have convincing evidence that someone who was previously blocked is evading their block then you can ask for help from an administrator. This is one likely venue; if the editor was blocked several years ago then be aware that administrators may not be able to perform a technical investigation as the underlying data are not retained for that long so you may need - and will want to do so anyway - to focus on behavioral evidence. ElKevbo (talk) 16:15, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your suggestions, they were very helpful. I will go forward with your recommendations. --KieraLewison (talk) 10:26, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Recent additions to Wisconsin Idea article

Hello ElKevbo, I'm a faculty member at the University of Wisconsin-Madison working with some undergraduate students who researched and recently added material to the Wisconsin Idea article. Three of the student groups were able to add their new material without problems, but it looks like the fourth group had its material (on the Wisconsin Idea and public health) deleted twice. I'm wondering if you can explain the reasons for the deletion and whether there are any revisions the students could make that would make this material acceptable. Thanks for any explanation and recommendations you can provide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cagoldberg (talk • contribs) 00:53, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

The issue that I had with the new material is that it appeared to be original research; unless I missed it - and I apologize if I did! - the cited references in the new material didn't mention the Wisconsin Idea. As far as I could tell, the public health connections were all original connections drawn by the editors and that's just not what is done in Wikipedia.

The material added about the class/lecture series isn't well-supported by adequate references, either, but the editor who added it began an edit war and I'm not willing to continue it. I have significant concerns not only about the sources that support that material but also the apparent conflict of interest underlying that section and how it was written and added to the article.

I recommend your students open discussions in the article's Talk page. This is a live project with thousands of other volunteers and we try to work out differences of opinion in Talk pages. ElKevbo (talk) 02:21, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I've commented on this at User talk:Akaaly1. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:35, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 04:09, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for these responses. I'm new to working with Wikipedia so these are very instructive. I will share this feedback with my students. Cagoldberg (talk) 05:55, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Belmont Abbey College, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Pierce.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 22 December 2020 (UTC)