User talk:ElKevbo/Archive 32

Hello! Thank you for copy editing my recent changes to Evergreen State College. I am still new to Wikipedia, so please pardon my ignorance, but I did not understand your justification for this revert change: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evergreen_State_College&diff=1298828963&oldid=1298828508 - "these are not stock prices (or even numbers that editors regularly update)" - my interpretation of these visual indicator templates is they are not limited to financial data alone, but may be used to annotate "a favorable progression" or "an unwanted deterioration" in other contexts (such as membership counts); nor do I apprehend how the frequency of their respect updates is relevant to their use. Examples of appropriate increase/decrease templates in non-financial context would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. OceanLoop (talk) 01:21, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

I do not know of any uses of those template in non-financial contexts, particularly in the infoboxes of US colleges and universities.

You're welcome to raise this issue in the article's Talk page or here to see what other editors think! ElKevbo (talk) 13:53, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your help updating the page. I live in North Iowa and the process has been somewhat confusing with different sources reporting different information. Hopefully everyone comes to the same conclusion at some point. Gcardinal101 (talk) 02:52, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

You're welcome! Thanks for adding the additional/new sources. ElKevbo (talk) 02:56, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

You changed my edit on the Ohio University page, telling me it’s “nonsense” that Oklahoma has “OU” trademarked. I am an alum and former employee of Ohio University, and I know that the University CANNOT use “OU” to associate itself with any name or logo because of the trademark. I kindly and firmly ask you to stop changing that, as it is a true legal matter that can be found with a quick and simple Google search. Please use this link to see the list of trademarked names Oklahoma holds.

https://soonersports.com/documents/2018/5/8/5473175.pdf

Have a great day. Jams81 (talk) 04:32, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

The university does not control any Wikipedia article or dictate their contents. The simple abbreviation "OU" is used in many, many places. If you'd like to contest the use of the abbreviation in any article then you are welcome to open a discussion in the article's Talk page.

And you need to take a look at our policy regarding legal threats. Editors who make legal threats are usually blocked as that is not compatible with a community-based project built on collaboration and consensus. ElKevbo (talk) 05:16, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Two things to consider; Just because the University doesn't control the page does not mean there aren't legal repercussions that could be present when using a trademarked name to reference another entity.

Additionally, none of my above message was a legal threat, and I do not violate the above "legal threat" policies. In fact, the policy has a very explicit section on copyright infringement that you need to take a look at yourself.

I am doing what I can to collaborate and be civil in this matter, but the overarching fact is there are legal trademarked agreements that cannot be used for other institutions, like Ohio University. The "OU" abbreviation is used informally when referring to Ohio University, but in spaces like this, it is not appropriate and can lead to legal issues on behalf of the University. While unlikely, it should be assumed to err on the side of caution.

I again, without any legal threats present as previously interpreted, ask you to not change this abbreviation again. Jams81 (talk) 20:08, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Your edit to Ohio University has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for information on how to contribute your work appropriately. For legal reasons, Wikipedia strictly cannot host copyrighted text or images from print media or digital platforms without an appropriate and verifiable license. Contributions infringing on copyright will be removed. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information.

Please refer to this link for more information.

https://soonersports.com/documents/2018/5/8/5473175.pdf Jams81 (talk) 20:32, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Why you trying to hide factual information about Wheeling University, removing sections related to their accreditation status. Information posted was accurate and complete, coming straight from the HLC. 174.197.66.157 (talk) 16:23, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Nothing is being "hidden." It's simply unnecessarily detailed for that encyclopedia article. ElKevbo (talk) 22:18, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

I have made significant additions to this page and revised the wording while retaining much of the content and structure that had existed previously. Subsequently, you wiped out all those revisions by reverting the content back to the previous version under the presumption that this was my personal point of view, along with all references from official documents.

These additions come from direct sources, including detail contained directly in official Colorado State University Global records, published documents and the bill authorizing the creation of the University by the Colorado State Legislature. Also included were direct references to their Accreditation by the Higher Learning Commission as referenced in their webpage. This is a significant element and a statement of fact regarding the university's status within academia. The contributions accurately reflect the documented information, and in many cases use the direct wording coming from the provided official documents and published materials of Colorado State University - Global.

Because you have not provided material cause that disputes the accuracy of the detail and supporting documentation which I provided for your reversion, I have in turn reverted the page back to what was added. The discussion page is where we can continue this further if you wish to justify why any/all the added content does not belong in the article. -- meur (talk) 08:55, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

You have objected to all my contributions on the Randolph Community College website. Thank you, I have learned a lot from them. However, the last one, dated August 5th, I must inform you was written by me with the help of my technology instructor. We conducted research to correct broken links. Artificial intelligence was not used at any time; the objective was to update the references. The text was not touched that day. If you destroy it and leave it as it was before, review the links; almost all of them are incorrect. Alvilindo (talk) 20:03, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification! ElKevbo (talk) 21:25, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

I understand the information about the in popular culture for the college being mentioned on Jimmy Kimmel as "trivial", that's fair, it was. But the addition of St. Gustav from Golden Girls is not. Not only is it mentioned multiple times in a popular TV show, the info I copied over was from the St. Olaf College Wikipedia page. That page even mentions Gustavus in it's wording. Therefore I feel that that is not a trivial mention but one that is worth including on the Gustavus page. Zoz0716 (talk) 18:46, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

What exactly are readers supposed to learn about the college from this information? How does it meet WP:DUE? ElKevbo (talk) 18:54, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

I wanted them to know the same thing as was on the St Olaf Wikipedia page is all. That the college has a cool fact that it was referenced in a popular TV show alongside another MN college (as was referenced on its Wikipedia page). So I'm just not sure why that pop culture reference is acceptable in that article and mine isn't, genuinely curious. I see you've deleted it again and we can leave it as it is. You're right, I don't want an edit war.

But, If I may, In the future, regardless of whether you feel it's appropriate in an article, it's appreciated if you give context as to how someone could improve an edit or why it might not be the right place for it. It was more frustrating that I took the time to make an edit that I felt was helpful and interesting to just have it deleted by another user with the comment: "trivial". I'd like to be a better and more learned editor as I can tell you are, seeing as you have over 100,000 edits which is impressive! So more context would help me do that. Just my two cents. Regardless, all the best. Zoz0716 (talk) 20:42, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

That's a fair point and I apologize if my edits came across as dismissive!

Throughout many articles, we have a longstanding challenge with well-meaning editors who add rather small facts that aren't very meaningful to our readers. For articles about colleges and universities, we have explicit guidance that says that "[i]f there are numerous reliable sources that discuss the institution's influence on popular culture then it may be appropriate to have a brief section describing that influence and offering well-known, pertinent examples. Such a section should not be an indiscriminate list of instances where the college or university is mentioned (in movies, books, television shows, etc.) nor should the section offer examples and discussion selected only by Wikipedia editors."

So what we'd like to see for this kind of information in an article about a college or university is information supported by sources that explicitly discuss the institution's place in popular culture. Then we can include that information in the article so that readers can understand what we're trying to convey (which is presumably not "here are some random, disconnected things that individual editors have added over the years"). That helps us write an article that is much more cohesive and meaningful - which is a real challenge in a project that is run by a disconnected group of volunteers who usually don't even know one another or communicate frequently!

So it's not personal. We're just striving for something more than a list of disconnected facts that happen to be selected and reported by one or more editors. ElKevbo (talk) 22:41, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Hey this is totally fair and now I see absolutely why my edit was rather trivial 😂 interesting to me, but not really beneficial to the overall understanding of the article and takes away from a broader point. I must just be Golden Girls biased haha. Thank you for making me a better editor, I'll be more thoughtful now next time. And you're right, the blessing and curse of many editors is that everyone has different things they want to emphasize and it can turn a concise article into something a mile wide and an inch deep. Appreciate it! All the best. Zoz0716 (talk) 23:03, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello @ElKevbo

I am reaching out to see if you might be able to possibly help me again with correctly uploading updates to the Point Loma Nazarene University Wikipedia page? I have left another Talk chat as to follow the platform's guidelines but I have not been successful in having any editors offer aid in accepting the revisions that would follow Wikipedia's guidelines.

If you would be so helpful to offer your aid again into checking to see what updates can be made from the additional updates wanted to be published on the university's Wikipedia page, I would greatly appreciate it.

Each of the updates have correct citations and sources to indicate their proof as well but, I would be happy to discuss any edits that don't meet the Wikipedia expectations and how to get such revisions up on the page.

Thank you Kylieamiller (talk) 17:56, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Why have you deleted like 3 days worth of my work on Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey?

Especially the founders section. What's up. Do we need to get into an edit war? Guylaen (talk) 02:37, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

My ethos on wikipedia is more is better than less, just so you are aware. Guylaen (talk) 02:40, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Some of the material, such as the founder section, was off-topic and undue. Other material was not appropriate such as the inclusion of people who don't have articles in the "Notable alumni" section.

You're more than welcome to open a discussion in the article's Talk page to see what other editors think! ElKevbo (talk) 02:46, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Any way you can help with a situation on St. Thomas University (Canada)? An obviously COI editor is adding promotional content and heavily overlinking the university's website. Their first account got soft blocked for username concerns but they created another one (which is allowed, but just wanted to note) wizzito | say hello! 20:37, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Long history of COI fuckery on the article too, including by students themselves as part of a class. Talk:St. Thomas University (Canada) wizzito | say hello! 20:40, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

They created another account and keep trying to edit the page despite being advised not to do so by you and me. I went to SPI. wizzito | say hello! 21:00, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Good call. They've also added the correct paid editing disclosure to their User page so I think we can wait to see what happens next. I recommend dropping them a friendly note in the article's Talk page, too, so they know that they're welcome to post requests, suggestions, and questions there. ElKevbo (talk) 00:53, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure we should be removing this information because of 2010 source. This program has only grown since then, and is much much larger than the ultimate frisbee group that is self-promoting on the page. Makes no sense to single out these groups and not that one. 2601:143:480:1460:6820:3F50:D9D:9949 (talk) 17:05, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Of course we can't use a source from 15 years ago to make a contemporary claim. If the claim is still true and it belongs in an encyclopedia article then editors should be able to provide a much more recent source.

And if you believe there is other information in the article that is very outdated or otherwise inappropriate then you're welcome to remove it, too. ElKevbo (talk) 23:50, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

I'd like to know how the update to the Academics section is considered "promotional" when it is talking about the majors, minors, and programs offered at the College. 198.151.179.5 (talk) 20:20, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Your edit was not just a simple "update to the Academics section." Especially problematic language includes:

"Austin College follows a semester system with a curriculum that emphasizes internships, community-based learning, undergraduate research and applied learning that helps our student put learning into action and finish in four years."

"Impressively, about 90% of graduates are either employed or enrolled in graduate school within a year of graduation, reflecting the college’s strong preparation for both the workforce and continued education."

Language such as this indicates the edit is not intended solely to update the article but intended to promote the college. The use of second person pronouns makes this especially easy to spot as does the egregious use of bolding that violates our Manual of Style.

Cut the crap. We're here to write an encyclopedia, not promote our employers or heap praise on our favorite subjects. ElKevbo (talk) 02:37, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi ElKevbo. @Jfrazierr made a pretty substantial contribution to the Foothill–De Anza Community College District article. They are working on this article as part of the WikiEdu course I'm helping manage @ https://dashboard.wikiedu.org/courses/University_of_Washington/Online_Communities_(Fall_2025). I see you reverted their contributions saying "very problematic edit - bizarre formatting, promotional language, poor sources, etc." I'm wondering if you could help them with revising their contributions to better fit Wikipedia's policies?

Ckiene4 (talk) 03:47, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Sure! ElKevbo (talk) 12:26, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

I mentioned you in the dispute since you commented in discussion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#City_College_of_New_York Graywalls (talk) 22:24, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello @ElKevbo,

I hope I am not too much of a bother! I took your advice to connect with other editors on the University and College Project Talk Page last month but, I have not heard anything unfortunately. I trust and have faith in you knowing you willl continue to follow Wikipedia's guidelines when it comes to any edits or revisions needed and I wanted to ask if you can help with the last of Point Loma Nazarene University's updates on their Wikipedia page?

Do let me know if there is anything I can do to help with the last of the revisions placed on the Talk Page in terms of better sources, grammar, or punctuation.

Sincerely, Kylie Miller Kylieamiller (talk) 15:56, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm doing something wrong in trying to do a major edit to the wiki entry for my employer. Is there training material in how to do it right? I don't want to do it wrong again. DFWTX (talk) 19:53, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

In general, we strongly discourage editors from making "major edits" to articles about their employer because they have a very strong conflict of interest. But you are welcome to make requests and suggestions in the article's Talk page! ElKevbo (talk) 01:08, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Could you take a look at the relatively recent content dump? I reverted them as they appear to be PR editing. The contribution pattern of three accounts that have added contents in relatively close timing are nearly WP:SPA in terms of their contribution and they may have COI with the UC system or various sources being inserted upon. Graywalls (talk) 17:41, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

I agree that the timing is suspicious but setting aside a potential COI or undisclosed paid editing issues I think the edits were almost entirely good ones. They mostly updated information already in the article and made welcome copy edits. I think there is a bizarre amount of details about trees in the article, some of which was added in these edits, but that's a minor quibble.

Thanks for asking for a second opinion! ElKevbo (talk) 03:27, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Henrich is trained as an anthropologist. Before he was at Harvard (where he is now Professor and Chair of the Department of Human Evolutionary Biology), he was a professor in the departments of psychology and economics at the University of British Columbia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Henrich
Here is a review in the journal of the Economic History Association
: https://eh.net/book_reviews/the-weirdest-people-in-the-world-how-the-west-became-psychologically-peculiar-and-particularly-prosperous/ Kirsten Jørgensdatter (talk) 03:46, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

So he's neither a historian nor higher education scholar? Have others accepted his thesis and published about it, too? ElKevbo (talk) 03:50, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

From his bio on Wikipedia:

"Henrich's research areas include cultural learning, the evolution of cooperation, social stratification, prestige, technological change, economic decision-making, and the evolution of monogamous marriage and of religion. Early in his career, Henrich led teams of anthropologists and economists in conducting behavioral experiments to test the foundations of game theory in diverse societies around the world. This body of research demonstrated that not only did the predictions of standard game theory, rooted in canonical assumptions of self-interest, fail across a diverse range of human societies, but that they failed in different ways in different places. ."
Kirsten Jørgensdatter (talk) 13:56, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Sorry but I'm not convinced that this novel hypothesis put forth by someone without expertise in this area is something we should include in an encyclopedia article. If others take up this idea and build on it then of course we should revisit the topic. And you're welcome - encouraged, even - to open a discussion in the article's Talk page to see what other editors think! ElKevbo (talk) 04:45, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

As a relatively new editor to Wikipedia, my sense is that a published book by the chair of a department at Harvard meets Wikipedia's requirements for notability and reliability as a secondary source that can be included in a Wikipedia article. Indeed, I am laboring under the (false?) idea that this is Wikipedia's "gold standard" for inclusion in an article. As a favor to me, can you point me to the Wikipedia article that describes the "novel hypothesis" nuance that explains why some notable and reliable secondary sources should be excluded from Wikipedia? Kirsten Jørgensdatter (talk) 15:22, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

I agree that the source is reliable. But we are not obligated to include information from every reliable source. We must still make editorial judgments about what is on-topic and what is due weight for any given source. And we routinely ask questions along the lines of "What is author's experience and expertise as it relates to this specific topic?" and "Have others taken up these ideas?" when making these decisions. (The concept of notability only applies when we're deciding whether a subject should have its own, dedicated article so it's not relevant to this discussion.)

Again, I encourage you to open a discussion in the article's Talk page so you can get opinions from other editors. ElKevbo (talk) 03:33, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the link to "undue weight":

"Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct (and minuscule) minority; to do so would give undue weight to it."

This appears to say that Henrich (a notable and significant viewpoint on the historical origin of medieval universities) would merit inclusion? (Where "inclusion" is not an essay, or even a paragraph, but just a sentence that flags the notable view?) Kirsten Jørgensdatter (talk) 13:08, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

You've hit the crux of my objection: I do not agree that a novel hypothesis that has been published once in a recent book by an author with no apparent background relevant to this specific topic is a significant viewpoint. If you have evidence that other scholars have built on this idea or otherwise acknowledged in ways that make it significant then I'd love to be convinced otherwise! ElKevbo (talk) 00:42, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

I just saw what's happened over there - I was off for a bit. Unacceptable. Please come back - we need your sane voice. Tvoz/talk 02:58, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the support and encouragement - it's much appreciated! ElKevbo (talk) 15:42, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

. Mistersyxx (talk) 10:40, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

We do not have an article about her and that is our typical standard for inclusion in embedded lists of "notable" people. ElKevbo (talk) 15:42, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Goshen College, a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Voice was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:56, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

I've noticed that university reputations have been removed from articles. Why is this? There's plenty of information about Michigan, UCLA, etc. being prestigious. I don't know enough to say but these are things I think would improve the pages. תִּקְוָה (talk) 06:14, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

I checked the rule you cited but it just seems to say that it needs to be from a high-quality reference? תִּקְוָה (talk) 06:29, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

I agree that those kinds of claims are important and helpful for readers. But they're hard to make responsibly and very often subject to bias and exaggeration. Hence the consensus that was established with WP:HIGHEREDREP.

The primary challenge with those kinds of statements, and this one in particular, is that they are so sweeping and broad that they require especially strong and explicit supporting references. One cannot make a massive claim that stretches across decades and only cite sources that focus on one specific ranking awarded in one specific year - you need sources that responsibly, accurately, and credibly synthesize many different factors across a large span of time. Specifically, a claim that an institution is "consistently ranked among the best public universities in the United States" would need independent sources that synthesize many years of rankings. And for such a claim to be included in the lead section it would have to be something that is already discussed in the body of the article. ElKevbo (talk) 00:49, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the insight. Has an objective standard been established for "best"? תִּקְוָה (talk) 22:46, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Not explicitly, as far as I know. But in this area where there are active scholars and peer-reviewed publications we would probably be wanting to see those kinds of things, especially since there are many people who also publish in this area with little expertise and a primary desire to sale ads and subscriptions. We would also want to ensure that the publications are independent of the subject since those who have strong connections to specific institutions (e.g., employees such as staff and faculty) have a strong reason to want to promote those institutions, consciously or unconsciously. And, of course, the sources should support what is being claimed i.e., they should ideally have been written about or across a large span of time if the claim makes a sweeping claim such as "usually" or "historically." ElKevbo (talk) 23:10, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

There probably should be. Either T-10 or T-20 would be a good standard. Depending on how widely you want to cast the net. I know why most state flagships have been scrubbed, but to do it to UC Berkeley or Michigan is wrong. תִּקְוָה (talk) 23:15, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Although both have been suggested, I'm not technically competent enough to add ARWU and TIME Magazine to the template.

Could you do this for me? I'd be incredibly grateful.

https://www.shanghairanking.com/rankings/arwu/2025 https://time.com/7358185/top-universities-globally-2026/

I tried. It broke the template. תִּקְוָה (talk) 23:06, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

You're probably the wrong person to go to about this. I just don't know who to go to.

The talk page is inactive (one post every year). תִּקְוָה (talk) 23:16, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

There needs to be an affirmative consensus to make changes to such a widely used template. Please open a discussion in the template's Talk page. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 23:37, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi @ElKevbo! I recently noticed that Oberlin Group of Libraries was deleted after an expired PROD. I'd tagged it for notability myself two years ago, but never had a chance to dive for sources, and I tend to take a dim view of PRODs (since I think if past editors went to the effort to write an article, it deserves at least the WP:BEFORE expected at AfD). On a brief search, I see enough to make me wonder if there's more out there, but not quite enough to establish notability on its own. What do you think? Should the PROD be reversed? Sdkb ^talk 00:04, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't think that those sources quite pass WP:GNG and I don't see other substantive sources that make me confident that the subject could or should survive an AFD. And I think that it's reasonable to expect and assume that editors who PROD an article have done their own search. ElKevbo (talk) 00:51, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Hiya, I just have a question about your reversion of my edit to the alumni list at Western Washington University.

Would you have less of an issue with those entries if they had a reference (I can find one for both people, but it looks like many existing people don't have one anyway) or is your issue just with the size of the list? I am curious because I feel like you removed my additions when they were just as notable as the existing list entries.

Do you have any other ideas? Maybe removing some entries and adding Template:Main category and/or splitting that section into a standalone list? BhamBoi (talk) 17:52, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for asking. My objection is based purely on the length of the list and has nothing to do with the particular people you added to it. It's already too long so it needs fewer people, not more.

Creating a new list article, moving all of the list entries to the new list article, and including a link to the new article along with a summary of the list article sounds like the ideal way to address this. ElKevbo (talk) 04:47, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your updates to the UCLA wiki page!

Sophiahartl (talk) 19:17, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

thank you for your updates to the UCLA wiki page Rtoko245 (talk) 22:00, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for updating UCLA's wiki!--SailorMoody (talk) 01:43, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Your edits are meaningful to UCLA! -- AdelaKarmen (talk) 02:32, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi, can you restore the Superbad reference. Actually, it's pretty extensive and relevant to the story in Superbad, which is a major film. Here's a link you can include. https://www.tiktok.com/@thesgtpepper/video/7331921605737696543 Thanks! Sedimentary (talk) 17:46, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

No thanks - it doesn't seem to be terribly relevant to readers' understanding of the university. If you'd like a second opinion, you're welcome to open a discussion in the article's Talk page! ElKevbo (talk) 22:06, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello. I want to open a discussion about the additions that were recently reverted, and I appreciate the pointer to do so here rather than continue reverting.

I should disclose upfront that I work at Kaskaskia College, which means I have a conflict of interest under Wikipedia's guidelines. I'm aware that COI editors are expected to propose changes rather than impose them, and I'm happy to operate that way going forward.

The additions I made were drawn entirely from third-party sources, local and regional news outlets, Moody's Ratings coverage, an accreditation body, and a construction firm's project documentation, rather than from the college's own website. They included a Moody's bond rating upgrade, a new competition gymnasium, an academic partnership with Southern Illinois University Carbondale, faculty and institutional awards, and a campus modernization program. I can provide the full source list if that would help your review.

I'm not trying to use Wikipedia as a promotional platform. The article, as it stood, was thin and in some places outdated, and I was trying to bring it closer to what a reader looking up the college would reasonably expect to find. I'm genuinely open to your feedback on what belongs and what doesn't.

Is there a specific concern about the additions,sourcing, neutrality, or scope that I can address? Geeokay (talk) 21:38, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

@Geeokay: I recommend asking these questions in the article's Talk page where other editors are more likely to see them. And I'd ping Melcous, too, since they also objected. But in general I recommend making smaller edits with clear, specific edit summaries so other editors are better able to understand exactly what you're doing and why - really large edits like the ones you've made to Kaskaskia College can be hard for other editors to understand and review. ElKevbo (talk) 01:54, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

I want to appeal your decision about recently reverted additions related to medical school rankings. The rankings(from the residency point of view) and related links were consistently treated as spam. An invistiagation made by the company during the past several years is absolutely unique and independent. The company obviously have no affiliation with any medical school. The algorithm applied depends only on the competitiveness of residency positions as mentioned on company website. Yes, the questions are not easy: Who can rank medical schools? How the schools shoold be rank? Should the wikipedia page contain school rankings? And many more. Please investigate the problem and make a decision. ~2026-29690-12 (talk) 11:36, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

I recommend asking this question at WT:UNI where you'll get responses and views from multiple editors and not just me.

In general, we have had problems with editors who insert their own ranking system into articles as a way to promote them. It's trivial for someone to make a website and their own ranking system and there are many such websites that exist to lure naive people into paying for access to more information or exist solely to sale advertising to shady or desperate advertisers. So we usually approach any ranking system with a bit of suspicion. If you're going to make a case that your ranking system is not only legitimate but such an important and noteworthy resource for readers that it should be included in Wikipedia articles, I recommend that you support that case with several high quality examples of reliable sources, ideally peer-reviewed articles written by higher education scholars, that describe and use your ranking system. ElKevbo (talk) 14:14, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

I can only 100% agree, just because it was a queue of links to fake rankings, including an absolutely new website that uses stolen data from AAMC store "MSAR". It is really hard to find a path when criminal thinking minds are doing intensive linking from resources like Wikipedia and gaining #1 in just 9 months. All this togather with your oversuspiciones makes me lough a lot. This is the life as it is. Please, while I spending time to support the case, please, also, spend some time for your own investigation. ~2026-29690-12 (talk) 16:45, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm so sorry for being reverted edits at Florida Atlantic University, but I click the wrong button. —KuyaMoHirowo (talk • contribs) 00:12, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Interesting things going on for the past few months at Antioch University and Lori E. Varlotta. Two editors, one of which has disclosed a COI. Can you have a look? wizzito | say hello! 01:56, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello I have been trying to get it done using the talk page, please check the thread User talk:Gumby12223. Can you please guide me on how to get the edits live through the talk page. Milindupatil (talk) 11:15, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

This essay has our best advice about how to request an edit. ElKevbo (talk) 12:02, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

This edit is screaming COI to me, especially the removal of "uncited" content which is actually sourced. I have temporary acc. IP viewer permissions, and the most I can say is that the geolocation is the same rough area Skidmore is in, but not on their actual network. wizzito | say hello! 02:08, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that earlier today and I thought about restoring the information about the hack. But I think that there is a reasonable argument to be made that hacks and breaches have become so common that they may not warrant inclusion in many cases, especially if there weren't lasting impacts (similar to how I think about lawsuits). ElKevbo (talk) 02:19, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

You're invited to join the Organized Labour community editing event, a cross-wiki event taking place throughout September 2026!

The campaign brings together Wikimedians interested in improving coverage of organised labour, workers, trade unions, and labour history. We have confirmed collaborations with Wikipedia language editions in English, Dutch, Persian, Serbo-Croatian and French. If you want to add other language editions or other wiki projects you are strongly encouraged to do so! This event spans geography and languages!

This is a one-time invitation. You're receiving it because you previously signed a petition related to Wiki Workers United (WWU). We hope you'll join us!

Regards ~ Shushugah (talk) 14:19, 19 August 2026 (UTC)