User talk:ElKevbo

John Jay Article

Hey, I don't know how to leave a signature so sorry about that but saw your edit. Those were college majors (have provided a link to the correct source), I don't know if it's against WP policy to list the majors the college offers (if it does, please feel free to let me know or undo it and I apologize) but wanted to give you the heads up. Anyway, it is dedicated to Criminal Justice, hence the college's name (John Jay College of Criminal Justice). Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.41.108.33 (talk • contribs) 22:16, November 4, 2021 (UTC)

Quick 2 questions

Hi @ElKevbo,

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

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

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

I don't recall any explicit discussion of those two things.

1. I don't think I've ever seen substantive discussion of "established" versus "founded." One could argue that the language used in the infobox parameter - "established" - is an indication of at least a weak consensus. On the other hand, only "founder" and "founding" are used in the current advice for college and university articles; "establish" isn't mentioned at all. I suspect that good arguments could be made that the words are not perfect synonyms and that each one is appropriate in some circumstances where the other isn't. So developing a consensus that one must be used and the other cannot be used seems unlikely. But developing a consensus on the different meanings that the words and the kinds of situations in which one or both are appropriate may be feasible and productive.
2. I don't know of any consensus that a particular number of images or rows of images dilineates a difference between "appropriate selection of examples" and "inappropriate gallery of images." "Rows" is not likely a useful indicator as that will vary depending on each reader's device (screen size, resolution, window width, etc.). My reading of the current image use policy is that collections (i.e., galleries) of images are strongly discouraged in favor of selective and tasteful placement of images near relevant text.

Sorry I don't have specific answers! ElKevbo (talk) 01:26, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) For (1), I concur with ElKevbo. For (2), my understanding is that such galleries are discouraged. One picture for the section is plenty for purposes of visual illustration. Beyond that, it's almost never the case that individual alumni are so important to a college (which will have thousands of them, in addition to many other facets to discuss) as to be due for anything more than a list entry. Sdkb ^talk 04:52, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

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

⚠

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

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

Stony Brook University Notable Faculty Section

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

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

Question About Recent Edits to University Ledes

Hi ElKevbo,

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

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

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

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

Best regards,

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

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

I agree. Some consensus would be helpful. I'll open a discussion, and your input would be valuable.

Thanks!

BorderlineRebel (talk) 15:18, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 October 2024

• News and notes: One election's end, another election's beginning

• Recent research: "As many as 5%" of new English Wikipedia articles "contain significant AI-generated content", says paper

• In the media: Off to the races! Wikipedia wins!

• Contest: A WikiCup for the Global South

• Traffic report: A scream breaks the still of the night

• Book review: The Editors

• Humour: The Newspaper Editors

• Crossword: Spilled Coffee Mug

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:13, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Discouraged vs Encouraged

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

You're welcome to propose that the policy be changed. But it's not ethical to tell editors that it says something that it doesn't say. ElKevbo (talk) 18:54, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

It was an honest oversight on my part, I'd previously acknowledged "strongly discouraged" earlier in the same thread. Your suggestion that I've behaved in an unethical way, meanwhile, is an obvious breach of WP:AGF and a personal attack which I suggest that you retract. Axad12 (talk) 19:03, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Just a thought here...

A few weeks ago, you and I had a minor disagreement on a semantics/procedural issue on a COI edit request.

The following day a user appeared at COIN and started a thread about you [6], pinging me at the end of the initial post. The user had obviously seen our disagreement on your talk page and at the COI edit request and had hoped that I'd turn up to support them.

Instead I was there within an hour of the original post, speaking very strongly on your behalf and saying the thread was completely without merit.

That isn't what an unethical user looks like. So cut me some slack, eh? Whatever minor disagreements we may have I'm sure we both know that ultimately we're on the same side. Axad12 (talk) 21:10, 19 October 2024 (UTC)