This is an archive of past discussions with User:GuardianH. 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.
Adding More Citations Needed tags on University Articles
Hello, I just removed the More Citations Needed tag on University of Maryland, but it looks like you are adding that rather freely on several other educational institution articles. Respectfully, it would be more helpful to place that tag with the section limit on sections where additional citations are needed, or use a Citation Needed tag on specific paragraphs/sentences. Saying an article with more than 275 citations on it needs more citations when for the most part it appears to be adequately sourced doesn't help me understand your concern or guide me in improving it. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 19:37, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
@Tcr25 The citation needed tag was primarily for the purpose of notifying readers that some information in the article may be unverified, and that editors ought to place respective citations where necessary. The section for Women's basketball is completely unsourced, as is substantial portions of the Campus section and Residential Life. There's some other clauses that need citation, and you're right that a section tag might be better. GuardianH (talk) 19:50, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Hello GuardianH, regarding some of your recent edits to college and university articles; it looks like you may not be applying the same standards objectively across the board, which, if true, would amount to a detriment to the principle of the free dissemination of accurate knowledge.
The first edit cites "an additional paragraph dedicated to alumni is excessive, may find better placement in body; WP:UNDUE". Conversely, you've added a very similar alumni paragraph to Connecticut College, which would also be also guilty of advertisement if we apply the same standard that you did in this edit:
All university pages contain a section dedicated to alumni in the lede, the problem was that oftentimes these become excessive and overly detailed, such as the case in UW-M and SDSU. These are WP:UNDUE and generally embellish a school's reputation in addition to being disproportional to the article. GuardianH (talk) 17:54, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for your thoughts. Whether or not the edits I reference above are WP:UNDUE is not relevant to the matter I wish to bring to your attention; they are an example of what appears to be a lack of objectivity evident in your recent changes to many college and university articles.
Another example of this concerning bias is your removal of the acceptance rate from the lede of the Hamilton College article, which you attribute to "trim puff":
Not applying the same standards objectively in your edits is a neutrality violation: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. This would amount to a detriment to the principle of the free dissemination of accurate knowledge upon which Wikipedia is founded. In the interest of this principle, I implore you to reconsider your approach to articles of this nature. Thank you. ConsistentStandards (talk) 20:34, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
The pre-existing clause for HC stated Hamilton places among the most selective colleges in the country, with an 11.8% acceptance rate. The first portion of the sentence was WP:UNDUE, and was not supported by the sources (both of which were primary). That was why I removed it; I hope that clears some things up. Your perhaps right in that it may be better to include the acceptance rate back in the lede; I've re-added it now that the puff has been trimmed. GuardianH (talk) 23:19, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
I think you are doing good work in decreasing puff and boosterism on university pages. May I ask your opinion about my work reducing Greek puff? I have been starting out on the talk pages of the various universities and colleges, proposing my deletions there first. But no one has answered so far, and there seems to be Wiki-consensus about reducing Greek puff. So: do you think it is necessary for me to start on talk pages or is it ok to delete without talk? --Melchior2006 (talk) 06:41, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Hey @Melchior2006, thank you for what you say about my effort to reduce puff; though there has been some movement, there is still a lot to be done. If no one responds in the talk page, it is likely that you can make your deletions without discussing them first—this is especially true if you believe your edits are relatively uncontroversial (i.e. if you are fixing grammar or obvious MOS:PUFFERY). You can also make edits you believe might be controversial (i.e. a removal of a puff-riddled section), per WP:BOLD. I'm not familiar with what you mean by Greek puff, but from what I've seen from a cursory look at your edits you've been making both good effort and progress to clean up higher education pages. GuardianH (talk) 14:21, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Hey @GuardianH, thanks for the support and the green light. By "Greek puff," I meant all of the lists and superfluous information about fraternity houses. I will go ahead and make a few edits without discussing them on the talk pages and let you know if I get any reactions. --Melchior2006 (talk) 07:57, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
No problem. It's just short for "neutral", so in that case I just reworded it using a more neutral term. I hope that clears some things up. GuardianH (talk) 03:08, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
It's not acceptable to rewrite the truth the way you see fit. I've reverted recent vandalism to the Northeastern and Connecticut College articles (your edits to the second are strange considering you appear to have written most of the reverted content yourself). I suggest you read over the Neutral Point of View FAQ guidelines, specifically: WP:POVDELETION.
"It is a frequent misunderstanding of the NPOV policy, often expressed by newbies, visitors, and outside critics, that articles must not contain any form of bias, hence their efforts to remove statements they perceive as biased. The NPOV policy does forbid the inclusion of editorial bias, but does not forbid properly sourced bias. Without the inclusion and documentation of bias in the real world, many of our articles would fail to document the sum total of human knowledge, and would be rather "blah" reading, devoid of much meaningful and interesting content."
You have a misunderstanding of WP:VAND, and you are labeling any edits you dislike to be vandalism in order to justify their removal. I removed content on Northeastern University because they were unsourced, were puff, unnecessarily excessive in detail concerning minor programs, or to remove undue information from the lede. These removals are valid per WP:NOSOURCES, WP:NPOV, WP:PROMOTION and WP:BOLD, among others, and removed MOS:PUFFERY, MOS:EDITORIAL, and WP:UNDUE. If you have a particular issue on an edit, you should seek consensus on the talk page and I will go through the material with you.
Colleges and universities have a problem with WP:ACADEMIC BOOSTERISM because they are often edited by alumni or affiliates (in a WP:COI), which leads to the addition of excessive, promotional, or entirely unsourced material, as was there in the article for Northeastern. My edits to Connecticut College were all self-reverts of my own additions—again, not even close to vandalism. GuardianH (talk) 19:13, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
All the information you removed was sourced. Puff, unnecessarily excessive detail, and undue information are all debatable. WP:BOLD specifically suggests not becoming upset if others revert your changes, because the nature of your changes are bold. WP:POVDELETION states properly sourced bias is not forbidden. Even if you believe the Northeastern article is biased, the bias is sourced and therefore permitted.
Your edits to Holy Cross are just as biased, it seems like you are willing to ignore these issues for the certain colleges while applying them stringently elsewhere. Relativebalance (talk) 19:24, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
You are using WP:POVDELETION to justify promotional, puff, and undue material, which it doesn't—that's why there are policies such as MOS:PUFFERY and MOS:EDITORIAL in place. Prime examples in the Northeastern article include:
Northeastern also has a comprehensive study abroad program that spans more than 170 universities and colleges.
Founded in 2009, IDEA is Northeastern University's student-led Venture Accelerator, which provides entrepreneurs, including students, faculty, and alumni in the Northeastern community with the necessary support and educational experience towards developing a business from core concept to launch.
Northeastern co-op students staying in Boston usually benefit from the fact that the city's most prominent industries have numerous offices/headquarters there.
Northeastern also has the notable Dialogues of Civilizations program, which features dozens of one-month-long programs (usually taking place in the summer) where a faculty member will teach a group of students in a region related to the curriculum of a specific class. A sort of "mini" study abroad, each program has an area of focus – for example, the Geneva program focuses on small arms and multilateral negotiations, while the South Africa program is based in non-governmental organizations, and the Seattle program focuses on design thinking. This program is meant to be a communicative experience and an exchange of ideas and cultures.
The historic structure, built in 1911, would influence new campus buildings away from the original gray-brick campus, as exemplified by the extension of the law school's Cargill Hall in the early 1980s.
Through landscape improvements, the university transformed a commuter school campus, once dominated by asphalt, to a greener environment. For example, the Behrakis Health Sciences Center, named for 1957 pharmaceutical alumnus George Behrakis, is a 240,000 square feet (22,000 m2) mixed-use project that included a residence hall and parking garage containing a garden roof, integrates smoothly into the campus.
Ice hockey has been one of Northeastern's most prominent athletic programs.
NU has carved out a quiet, peaceful space in the centrally located Ell Building for the Spiritual Life Center's Sacred Space. The nondenominational Sacred Space, the center's main assembly hall, can be configured with carpets, mats or chairs. It has a distinctive ceiling consisting of 3 hanging domes made of overlapping aluminum tiles with an origami-like effect, warm wood floors and accents, and glass-paneled walls that lean outward slightly, their shape and material giving a sense of openness and volume to the space.
I've reverted your changes and opened a discussion on this topic quoting your reasoning on the Northeastern Talk page to gather a consensus and get the opinion of more editors. I hope we can hold off on an edit war until the broader community weighs in. Relativebalance (talk) 19:44, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
I'll go through the particular issues on the talk page you've opened up. I'll reinstate the conncoll edits; as mentioned above, neither constituted vandalism and removing my own additions to an article is far from it. GuardianH (talk) 19:59, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
There is a special rule in effect at the Hunter Biden laptop page that reads “Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page.” Your edit here ran afoul of that as that had recently been removed and reinstated and thus was not permitted to be removed again without consensus on the talk page. It has since been removed again, so there’s nothing you need to do, but just keep this in mind moving forward. I hope you’ll participate in the talk page discussion and help find the right way to handle this text. Mr Ernie (talk) 02:29, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for May 1
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Marie L. Garibaldi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page LLM.
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Dorcas Hardy, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
You have recently edited a page related to COVID-19, broadly construed, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.
Regarding this revert, the capitalization of "court" was quite inconsistent in the article before I edited it, and simply undoing that work probably wasn't the best course of action. I don't find in MOS:INSTITUTIONS any justification to capitalize, but there's always another guideline or policy and you're likely drawing on one I just don't know yet. I'd be curious to know which it is. In any case, if you want to capitalize "court" then you should take the time to be consistent about it, as I did. ~TPW14:20, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
You recently made an edit on Luo Wenzao. Specifically, you combined "ChineseCatholic" (linking to Chinese people and Catholic church respectively) into "Chinese Catholic" (now linking to the Catholic Church in China). The edit link is here.
It's on me that I did not follow MOS:LINKSTYLE, that I shouldn't have put "Chinese" and "Catholic" side-by-side. However, putting the single "Chinese Catholic" link here is misleading: Luo is not the first Bishop in the Catholic Church in China. There are other apostolic vicars (with the title of bishop) before him, such as Francois Pallu. To quote from the article:
In 1658, Pallu became Bishop of Heliopolis, and Vicar apostolic of Tonkin (which consisted of northern Vietnam, Laos and five provinces of southwest China).
As such, I am modifying the lede and in a way reverting your edit. I hope I made the point clear, and I thank you for your attention to the article. Now the lede should say "... was the first Catholic bishop of Chinese ethnicity".
P.S. I also went to high school in somewhere in Massachusetts, about 40 minutes to the north of Boston, and headed the Wikipedia club there... ;)
An excellent article @TheLonelyPather; of course, I take no issue with any of your changes. Your work on Wenzao is prodigious, as one might expect of an educated person who headed a Wikipedia club in Massachusetts. GuardianH (talk) 22:40, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
"Correcting" university degrees
Be careful when altering a degree awarded, as you did in Elena Kagan. Kagan's degree was not a BA, as you have altered the article to read; it was an AB. See the information Kagan herself supplied to the Senate for her confirmation hearings.
If you are making similar edits to other article, please confirm you have it right before making such "corrections". TJRC (talk) 02:55, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
@TJRC An A.B. and a B.A. are identical — the former stands for artium baccalaureus and the latter, baccalaureus artium. Regardless, they both are terms for a Bachelor of Arts. What's of note is that some schools — i.e., in this case, Princeton University — keep the original Latin tradition of labeling a degree A.B., that's why Kagan labeled her degree an A.B. Most readers are familiar with B.A., but otherwise unfamiliar with an A.B.
Per the use of the most easily identifiable label, it is better to label these degrees as a B.A,; the only exception likely being if the user received their degree before the advent of widespread highered (i.e. the days of Harvard College). Harvard also still uses the antiquated method of labeling their BA as AB, and this includes their master's degrees and other graduate degrees (BS as SB, MS as SM, MA as AM) but, for the aforementioned reason above, we don't reflect this use for sake of readability. GuardianH (talk) 22:01, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
I find lists of sports teams to be a lot like advertising. Often, there is no way of verifying the information. I am sure that in some cases they are inaccurate because teams have died or new ones have been founded. In general, the value of such lists as encyclopedia information is questionable. What do you think? -- Melchior2006 (talk) 13:34, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
If sports teams sections are completely unsourced, it's likely that you can remove the longstanding material — this is especially true since, given there is little way of verifying the information, it may have been placed with the goal to inflate the schools reputation. In fact, some unverified lists of, e.g., a school's victories in sports may be supplemented by completely fabricated information. See WP:PROMOTION; if it is blatant or explicit in this fashion, it should definitely be removed. GuardianH (talk) 02:09, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Franklin & Marshall College, boosterism
Howdy,
I've recently overhauled the Franklin & Marshall article and I agree, it appears to be boosterism. I'm not trying to bolster the college's reputation, I just got caught up in improving the article. It's a bad look, I agree.
I'll refrain from touching the article and I'll let other able Wikipedians have at it. This is a formal apology for the appearance of impropriety.
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Please explain why you should leave leftism and not conservatism. Have you read his manifesto? You say he attacked other political ideologies, but that is not true.
He only attacked those two political ideologies.
You're not giving a good reason why conservatism should be left out.
I hope there is no POV pushing going on with your edits, which goes against NPOV.
@Nashhinton Both his critiques of conservatism and leftism are in the body, but just his critique of leftism is warranted in the lede to maintain WP:DUE weight. Kaczynski knew his philosophy of anarchism was generally tied with left-wing politics, so he deliberately chose to focus the manifesto as a rejection of left-wing politics. Not only is the manifesto a polemic against leftism, but most of it is entirely dedicated to it — see The Psychology of Modern Leftism and The Danger of Leftism. The manifesto is rife with these critiques of leftism. Alternatively, his critique of conservatism is minute by comparison; the only worthy section dedicated to it is paragraph 50. I reverted your edit because the lede addresses the most important parts of his manifesto — his rejection of leftism is one of those important parts, not his rejection of conservatism. GuardianH (talk) 00:16, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
You very quickly reverted on the Angela Davis article, without any explanation. Instead I would encourage you to help fix the error that you believe exists instead of quick reverts.
@Jjazz76 I provided an explanation in the edit summary. Per the summary, the information added by the IP editor synthesized info from multiple sources, without any of those sources explicitly reaching its conclusion. See WP:SYNTH, which prohibits such additions. GuardianH (talk) 00:30, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
Did you look at the underlying sources? Have you checked the German wikipedia page for a discussion on this very same topic? Before you make quick edits take a few hours to review the sources. They are all over the map on the issue and don't come to the consensus you are claiming. Jjazz76 (talk) 00:32, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
@Jjazz76 We can't use other Wikipedia articles, much less other versions of Wikipedia, as sources to material nor to follow their particular consensus on a topic; this is central per WP:CIRCULAR. There are dozens of different versions of Wikipedia, and all of them can come to different conclusions about the same topic. GuardianH (talk) 00:39, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
@Jjazz76 I read them already, and none of them support the conclusions reached by the IP editor. In fact, the majority of them are all supplements to the IP editor's opinion on the topic without explicit mention, which is an abridgment of WP:NOR. For example, in the sentence "Other biographies make no mention of an earned PhD", the sources accompanying it don't say explicitly that any biographies make no mention of a PhD, so it's original research and due to be removed. GuardianH (talk) 00:47, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
I've already flagged your reverts as vandalism and you seem to engage in a habit of this as noted on this talk page. Jjazz76 (talk) 00:50, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure how you are coming to the conclusion that my reversion of the IP edits constitute vandalism in some way. The IP edits contain original research, so they are due to be removed, which I did. You reverted my removal, saying I never provided any explanation, but I did in all of edit summaries; you then posited that I should have looked at the German Wikipedia, but I told you we can't use other Wikipedias as a source. Note that all of your revisions of my edits never had any edit summaries themselves.
I'd certainly like to improve this article with you. Some of the existing information is very poorly cited from weak sources and there are sources out there that dispute the findings. How do we make sure the article represents a NPOV on these issues? Jjazz76 (talk) 01:13, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
Well, removing the original research would be a good start. Any more additions to the article should be properly sourced — in other words, ensure that each source explicitly, in in-text attribution, supports any claim. The first problem is that a substantial portion of the sources stem from German sources; I don't speak German fluently, and its likely that most other editors who wish to read about Davis don't either. So if there is to be any more additions, they should also ideally be from English sources. GuardianH (talk) 02:14, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
@Jjazz76 Per our discussion here, I have reverted the additions back to the original as part of a WP:PRESERVE. What's necessary are sources that explicitly — not indirectly — challenge Davis' having completed a dissertation and/or a PhD. Given your mention of a controversy on the German Wikipedia, it seems likely source(s) are out there; I have yet to find any, so maybe you could be of help in finding some. Also, this is best discussed on the page for Angela Davis rather than on my talk page. GuardianH (talk) 06:42, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi Guardian H,
I posted the note on the Angela Davis talk page, but also wanted to loop back with you on it here. I encourage you to take a look at - Sophie Lorenz - »Schwarze Schwester Angela« – Die DDR und Angela Davis, which was published in 2020. Of particular interest is footnote 383 on p 249.
"Dass Davis eine entsprechende Doktorarbeit abgeschlossen hat, ließ sich im Rahmen dieser
Untersuchung nicht bestätigen. Die Existenz einer Promotionsakte von Davis im Universitätsarchiv
der Humboldt-Universität Berlin konnte auf Nachfrage ebenfalls nicht bestätigt
Hi GuardianH. I don't believe we've ever directly interacted. I'm KyleJoan. I learned about your loss on your user page after coming across it in the edit history of Ronan Farrow(edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). I wish you strength and hope you find healing during this time. KyleJoantalk05:33, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
I am very sorry to hear about your grandfather's passing. I will include him in my prayers. Thank you for all your good work on Wikipedia; take a good rest. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 07:06, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
I offer my condolences to you, too. He must mean a lot to you, and you honor him by taking a moment in this busy world to note his passing on your talk page. Godspeed. Brad606 (talk) 19:44, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
The article Quintin Johnstone you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Quintin Johnstone for comments about the article, and Talk:Quintin Johnstone/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of FormalDude -- FormalDude (talk) 17:02, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for July 18
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Thomas Spota, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New York.
Orphaned non-free image File:Harvard Journal of Law and Pub'Poly Logo.png
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Harvard Journal of Law and Pub'Poly 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).
I guess not. I thought I saw Crawford state her birthdate in a publication that showed up on Google, but that just turned out to be some random website that I don't think qualifies as an RS; I'll remove it now. GuardianH (talk) 00:11, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Ted Kaczynski
My edits to remove the claim that Ted Kaczynski was ever diagnosed with cancer have been repeatedly removed. I understand I shouldn't act on my own hand but then what am I to do? It is fact that this rumor first appeared on a reddit post where a user claimed that Ted Kaczynski wrote a letter back. The cancer was never confirmed. Besides, in this alleged letter, these two people converse as if they are plotting to start a revolution. These kinds of letters and even to a lesser degree have been denied from being given to Kaczynski due to them not being conducive to his rehabilitation. Besides this, the handwriting in the letter and his other letters as well as his manifesto do not match. I can keep trying to prove my point but the question I'm asking is what do I do to combat this obvious hoax? Wikipedia is no place for misinformation, especially when it happens as effortlessly as this. DeVoery (talk) 00:37, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
I don't know where AP got their information. When dozens of other news organizations repeat the same thing, most writers wouldn't bother to check its legitimacy. When the staff at the medical center Kaczynski was transferred to were asked about the cancer rumor, they didn't confirm it. Fact is no news organization started mentioning Kaczynski had cancer until a reddit post appeared. DeVoery (talk) 01:02, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
@DeVoery I think you are confusing some things a bit. Two things can be true at once: that Kaczynski had cancer, and that a Reddit post said he had cancer. The fact that a Reddit post mentioned him having cancer does not mean that all subsequent media coverage got their information from that Reddit post, that itself is an ignorance fallacy. It's more likely that the AP and other media sources got their information from somewhere else. GuardianH (talk) 01:08, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
AP article doesn't specify how they got ahold of that information. They certainly didn't get it from the medical staff or Kaczynski, which leaves only the rest of the articles and the Reddit letter itself as their sources of information DeVoery (talk) 01:17, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Discussion about recent edits to UC Berkeleys article
Hello,
We recently discussed the lede in Berkeleys article and you removed the section in question with the note that "a consensus had been reached". I would like to draw your attention to these replies from elkevbo, the person originally opposing the inclusion...
your recent edits are much closer to what we need to support this kind of claim in accordance with WP:HIGHEREDREP. Several of the sources, however, are pretty weak - single-year rankings and ephemeral news articles - and should be replaced with much better sources written by scholars and higher education experts.
multiple sources were added and elkev responded-
The first, third, and eighth sources are pretty good; I have no notes. The second and seventh sources aren't too fantastic but they're relatively recent news articles in reputable venues by reporters who work the higher education beat so they're alright. The fourth source is 20 years old so not usable for a claim about the university in the present tense. The fifth source is just a book review so shouldn't be cited here at all (although the reviewed book is likely a good source). The sixth source is about 12 years old so it is also too old to cite for a claim about the university in 2023.
Frankly, I recommend just removing the two old sources and the book review and seeing where we stand then.
The consensus seemed to be that there was an issue with SOURCES, with only the first, third, and eighth being strong enough to include. However, the issue was not with the claim itself, as elkev agreed that 3 sources were appropriate. Given this, I think the previous version of the article should be reinstated and the two bad sources removed. In the end, the consensus was not complete removal. Nightshade2000 (talk) 07:36, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Please add edit summaries!
Hi, I was reviewing the article about Clarence Thomas, where you have made a good number of edits recently. However, I was surprised to find very few edit summaries, which makes it difficult to see what is going on without reviewing the changes directly.
Going forward, please consider including a brief summary of the changes you are making with each edit, as is customary. It's incredibly helpful so that other editors can more easily understand the evolution of the article. Thank you! 72.14.126.22 (talk) 19:59, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
I'd like to add my encouragement to that of the editor above. Please use edit summaries. Always. Even if very brief or a code of your own usage. Effective large communities like Wikipedia's tend to benefit from excellent lateral communication. Useful edit summaries are an excellent way to help admins or other interested editors quickly sort good guys from bad (in the case of disrupters), sort wheat from chaff (in the case of large page histories) or to improve clarity of assertion (in talk disagreement). Think of it as swinging big elbows at the family table, so everyone can get a sense of each others' space. Please consider reading WP:EDITSUMMARY. As part of WP:CIVILITY policy, every edit should be explained. Thanks for your individual edits, which are very helpful. BusterD (talk) 01:34, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 18
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
On 19 August 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Quintin Johnstone, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Quintin Johnstone advocated giving control of an American-governed law school to native Ethiopians? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Quintin Johnstone. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Quintin Johnstone), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
I would suggest accepting defeat on the DP alma mater issue. I don't see anything wrong with having it (though I also don't see any issue with removing it). The problem is when you can't establish consensus the edit warring is a bad look. A while ago I realized that even if I technically could "win" (ie they would hit a revert limit before me), in the end it didn't help. Springee (talk) 23:11, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 25
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Michael Harrington, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page In These Times.
Orphaned non-free image File:CANE(Classical Association of New England)logo.png
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:CANE(Classical Association of New England)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).
Thanks for uploading File:ClassicalAssociationofNewEngland(CANE)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).
There is a consensus to describe Richard Lynn as a "controversial psychologist", so technically your recent edit [2] is against consensus. This has actually come up several times. Here is the most recent discussion: Talk:Richard Lynn/Archive_5#"Controversial" again. While consensus can change, you should self-revert to avoid being in violation of consensus at this time. Thanks for your understanding. Generalrelative (talk) 17:24, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
Just stop editing British biographies. You refuse to take advice. Changing * [[Trinity College, Cambridge]] * [[Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge|Faculty of Law]], [[University of Cambridge]] to * [[University of Cambridge]] is again incorrect. You clearly have no desire to learn, despite multiple editors trying. This is your final [soft] warning as you just don't get it. Gaia Octavia AgrippaTalk19:00, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
I'm not going to go through your edits to see which have been reverted or otherwise corrected after you have swept through.
Your incompetence relating to British academia is clear, your errors have been pointed out (and those relating to American academic post-nominals) and yet you plough on regardless. So, stop, breath, educate yourself and continue correctly or stop editing British biographies. Gaia Octavia AgrippaTalk21:05, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
No, for Oxford, Cambridge and London universities, all essentially bands of affiliated institutions, it is correct and usual to give the college or what ever London calls them, NOT the faculty nor the plain overall university. Believe it. Johnbod (talk) 03:31, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
@Johnbod Is there anything in policy that supports this? I have seen both the college name and the full institution (University of Oxford) in use for a scholar's institutional affiliation, and two things can be true at once here: that either is acceptable. Also, universities have seldom dictated policy on the site. I know Gaia pinged you so I think a RfC might be appropriate to avoid a WP:CANVASS, given that you've also disagreed with me in previous discussions. GuardianH (talk) 03:40, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
We follow WP:RS here, and that is what they normally do. You obviously don't understand the British system at all, and just won't be told. There is ample consensus here - it's just you on the other side. Do a Rfc if you must - it will sink like a stone. I've no idea where "you've also disagreed with me in previous discussions", but I'm not at all surprized - you do far too many small fiddling edits, with too low quality control. Johnbod (talk) 03:56, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
@Johnbod First of all, I think both of you are edging on WP:UNCIVIL here, both by belittling my perspective (WP:ICA) by assuming it to be that I'm uneducated and obstinate instead of that I'm pointing out that there is no policy justification or formal consensus established, like you mentioned. That by condensing it down to University of Oxford instead of having a list of all the constituent colleges amounts to stop editing British biographies and to stop, breath, educate yourself and continue correctly or stop editing British biographies.
Like I said, there are articles both naming the colleges and the institution as a whole (i.e., University of Oxford), and from the looks of it it seems both have been acceptable to editors. In other words, is there anything that grounds the listing of all the colleges in policy rather than just preference? GuardianH (talk) 04:10, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
I'm not talking about where they were educated, I'm saying that in regards to their institutional affiliation (i.e., infobox academic under 'institutions') there are articles with either the individual colleges listed and there are articles with just the university (i.e., just University of Oxford instead of [x] college, [y] college, [z] college). Do you see what I'm saying? GuardianH (talk) 04:22, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
@Johnbod Mynors was both. "He was elected to a fellowship at Balliol and became a tutor in Classics." + "He also became a fellow of Pembroke College." So, by what you're saying, it should be:
Oh yes, but you don't get to take over my life. I've being doing more useful stuff, but will return to this in my own good time. Johnbod (talk) 04:09, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
@Johnbod So just now you're busy? It seems you've been more than happy to engage in this discussion previously. But now that I've provided the FAs that show editors have accepted University of Oxford and University of Cambridge under institutions, now you need to take the time to think? There's some irony to this. I take it you will respond in the near future. GuardianH (talk) 04:22, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
Johnbod It's been a couple of days now. Since that time you've been participating in a few other discussions; I don't really see much point in prolonging this one on your end. It's due for a response (when you're not editing at 5 in the morning?). GuardianH (talk) 17:20, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
Hello again, I have been busy in real life and continue to be so this is a flying visit. This highlights the difference between Oxford colleges and the University of Oxford: Academic College job are offered by individual Oxford Colleges, each of which is an independent employer with its own terms and conditions of employment which are different from the University terms and conditions and The appointment of an Associate Professor is a joint exercise of two employers: the college and the faculty/department.. The same applies to Cambridge colleges. While in the modern age teaching is shared between colleges and the university, its still the teaching by the colleges that is the central aspect; undergraduates are admitted to a college not to the university. While it is common now for lecturers to hold both a university teaching post (in a faculty/department) and a college fellowship this was not always the case: this is still two posts in two different institutions. In the past, it was common for fellows to not hold a university post, and is still possible today. This is especially true of early female academics who were employed solely by a college due to contemporary sexism (eg Maude Clarke), and more recent example would be Nan Dunbar (died 2005), so it is simply incorrect to simplify things to just "University of Oxford". It is fully possible that someone has been purely educated by their college and their only contact with the university is sitting the same exams as set by the university alongside people from different college. This is also why the college is given as an alma mater rather than Oxford/Cambridge University.
Gaia Octavia Agrippa, my point has been what has been acceptable to editors regarding the British higher education system, and that condensation has been accepted. You've provided ample evidence that the colleges are autonomous from the university, but none of what you've said shows a consensus among editors to always name separate colleges under a subject's institutional affiliation. There's been at least four FAs that have condensed a person's institutional affiliation to just University of Oxford/University of Cambridge regardless of their fellowships or professorships at different colleges, and those have all passed FAC. Like I said, both condensation and no condensation has been accepted, rather than only no condensation. GuardianH (talk) 18:13, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
Can you explain the reason for this edit. You failed to provide an edit comment the last two times you made this change, so I'm not sure the reason. Adding hobbies doesn't seem like a forbidden thing here? In my opinion, I don't think it's trivia, but helping to define the person's character and interests (a la Bill Clinton playing a saxophone). --Engineerchange (talk) 15:08, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
@GuardianH: I previously added in the in-line cite to clarify that I believe it is sourced: "Andrew was a brilliant litigator, a devoted gym rat and an avid bicyclist, having cycled along the coast of California and from Washington D.C. to Florida." is part of the obituary above that comment. Maybe saying "many cross-country trips" is the uncitable part? --Engineerchange (talk) 17:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Yes - I think so. The source as a whole is actually somewhat questionable, which is why I'm also reticent as to why we might include his minor hobbies. Obituaries often do this a lot — i.e., 'he was a brilliant x', 'a loving father and x', 'lover of shakespeare', and 'utterly devoted to scholarship, x, y, etc.' We don't usually reflect these labels for obvious reasons, and I think it would be best to include information from obituaries like that only when it is relevant to what the subject is known for (which in this case, would not really be for being an avid biker). GuardianH (talk) 20:15, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
@GuardianH: I mean obituaries (at least in the last 30-50 years) are almost always written by family (as far as I know), so I think it's unfair to say all obituaries are bad given in many cases for obscure politicians in the 19th century (more of my focus of late) that can be all we have to start guessing at dates of birth/death, careers, family, etc. I think the best alternative here would be to remove some of the fluff like "avid" and "many", and state the likely factual statements without much color. Thoughts? (also, I very much appreciate this discussion!) --Engineerchange (talk) 21:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
I think the best alternative here would be to remove some of the fluff like "avid" and "many", and state the likely factual statements without much color — I agree! This definitely works best. GuardianH (talk) 22:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
June 2024 - Edit Summaries Revisited
Hello GuardianH. I noticed you deleted (reverted) my request on your talk page that you use edit summaries to explain your reasoning for edits, or to provide a description of what the edits change, because summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances your edits will be misunderstood. Of course, like your edits to Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison your summaries could have been brief. First, while you may freely remove comments from your talk page, archiving is preferred. Second, the addition of a notable partner and the type of law firm to Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison do not appear to be Gnome activities which include “improving punctuation, fixing typos, correcting poor grammar, creating redirects, adding categories, repairing broken links, and many other …repetitive tasks”. This is further evidenced by your not ticking the "This is a minor edit" box before saving each edit, using such edit designation being inappropriate under minor edit requirements. Saying your inaction was just some Gnome from you, doesn’t make it so. Such is governed by WikiGnome not personal preference. Rather than deleting a comment that you don’t like, I suggest you revisit the use of edit summaries and consider leaving them when Gnome and minor edit requirements don’t apply. Regards, Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 04:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
I do many repetitive but still important tasks (WP:GNOME), and that was one of them — adding onto a list and a word onto the lede. The gnome tasks you chose above is few and unrepresentative, and you took the examples for Wikignomes as being strictly exclusive even though the passage says differently ([Gnomes do] many other …repetitive tasks). This is among many repetitive tasks. The reason for adding onto a list is obvious, as is adding a subject descriptor, so an edit summary was forewent as per WP:FIES. GuardianH (talk) 04:30, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
My god, you're right! What a strange word! I am awarding you the English Wikipedia Award of Lexicographic Merit, First Class, with Oak Leaves and Bits of Rubies. You pay only postage and handling. EEng07:12, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Or should it be lexicographical?
Thank you, EEng. GuardianH (talk) 07:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)An image of me (taken by Mom) walking down the street with my shirt emblazoned with the newly-bestowed English Wikipedia Award of Lexicographic Merit, First Class, with Oak Leaves and Bits of Rubies.
logo.png){kind=link}
logo.png){kind=link}
Logo.png){kind=link}
Logo.png){kind=link}