User talk:ElKevbo
|
Archives
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
John Jay Article
[edit]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)
Stony Brook University Notable Faculty Section
[edit]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
[edit]Hi ElKevbo,
I trust your judgment on matters related to higher education articles, so I wanted to get your take on some recent edits made by a user (EC2say) regarding the ledes of several well-known universities (including Stanford, Caltech, and MIT) while ignoring others (Harvard, Columbia, UChicago). Here are the relevant diffs:
The user removed content from the ledes, citing that such statements do not comply with Wikipedia. Specifically, it seems like they are trying to limit mentions of the universities’ influence on modern disciplines, which could be seen as reducing the "prestige" tone in these articles. I'll admit, the ledes are cleaner, but I'm not sure the removal of the influence of these universities on areas of modern life and academia are justified.
Do you think these changes were warranted, either partially or fully? I’m interested in hearing your perspective on whether these edits align with Wikipedia’s guidelines and how we should approach similar edits in the future.
Best regards,
BorderlineRebel (talk) 16:05, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- One could uncharitably interpret these edits as deliberately disruptive. It seems to be more productive to view them in a larger context that suggests that we need to hold a project-wide discussion about the inclusion of counts of alumni in the lede of articles about colleges and universities. A discussion at WT:UNI certainly seems to be in order, perhaps in preparation for an RFC. ElKevbo (talk) 01:06, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- I agree. Some consensus would be helpful. I'll open a discussion, and your input would be valuable.
- Thanks!
- BorderlineRebel (talk) 15:18, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
The Signpost: 19 October 2024
[edit]- 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
Discouraged vs Encouraged
[edit]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)
- 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)