User talk:Rublamb/Archive 1

Courtland, Virginia
Could you please use citation needed tags? Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:35, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Magnolia677 Hi Magnolia. I will take a look, but I just copied and pasted the existing code on that page for citations needed. Did you also contact the other poster as well? Or am I the only one? Just wondering because this is beginning to feel a bit like harassment. I moved away from the Cary, NC page because of your over guarding and excessive deletion. Please stop reviewing my contributions to other pages. I think you know enough about me by now to know that my plan is to go back and find citations for the Courtland page. FYI, when looking back, I found that I made my first changes to Wikipedia in 2008. I am not a beginner and do not need a babysitter. I would not mind a friend and mentor, but don't want this type of "help" you have been providing to date. Thanks. Rublamb (talk) 02:20, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Mara Rockliff moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Mara Rockliff, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.  scope_creep Talk  13:50, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Cary, North Carolina
The "notable people" section of US city articles is for those with a Wikipedia article. Exceptions are made after consensus on the article talk page, per WP:USCITIES. I hope this helps. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:29, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

At Cary, North Carolina, you removed citations from the notable people section. Those citations are not to prove notability; those people already has a Wikipedia article. They are to support that the person actually lived there. Could you please restore them? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:55, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Magnolia677 Thanks for asking. I have been working on the notables' articles, making sure a documented reference to Cary is in the article, and adding content with citations if needed. If I removed the citation from the Notable list, it is because that source is now used on the notable's page and / or there is even better proof of their relationship to Cary within the page. I added many of the citations to the Notables List previously to remind me that this work was needed. My little project is taking longer than I expected because some of the notables just had stubs; others had text but no sources, and others had not been updated in several years. One has been a complete rabbit hole with several related pages that are also problematic. Does my reason for removing these citations and project make sense? Rublamb (talk) 13:24, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * If an notable person has a source, there's no need to delete the source unless it doesn't support the edit. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:16, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Friend, I'm very good at this, and I'm very careful before I submit an edit. Please stop reverting me before reading my edit summaries and checking the references I cite. It's becoming disruptive. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:16, 28 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Magnolia677 I could say the same for you with regards to my work for weeks now. At this point, you won't let a single sentence that I write remain. I reverted my revert of your photo edit because I realized you were bringing me to your level. I don't care about that stuff. What I care about is facts. Now, two people have told you that you edits to my work are wrong based on the facts. And that is what I am trying to address. Let me try explain. For example, you changed a sentence to say that Cary was formed in the late 19th early 20 century. False. You changed a sentence to say that RTP came in the 1960s. False. You changed a sentence to say that Cary turned into a bedroom community in the 1960w. False--it started as a commuter community to NCSU and Raleigh a decade earlier as explained in the history section. Your constant reworking of my sentences is changing the meaning. I get that you dislike passive voice, but I will take passive voice over incorrect information any day. Here's an example of how petty you are being. There is a section with four sources about growth==one the NC State Historic Preservation Office staff, the others Census and the City's own records with regards to growth. What more do you want. Who is going to be a higher source on population data than the city, the state and the federal government? I can keep looking for another source, but honestly, please stop reworking sentences to death. It is not helping anyone and you are making page inaccurate Rublamb (talk) 19:33, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Cary, North Carolina. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Please do not remove sourced content. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:58, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Your recent edits at Cary, North Carolina, introduced cite errors. I am likely going to remove the puffery sourced by Business Wire, per WP:SELFSOURCE, but I cannot until the cite errors are fixed. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:41, 6 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Magnolia677 I removed the entire section so I can figure out why sources did not transfer correctly from my sandbox, turning into other sources. That is a strange thing indeed. I will x business wire from the text as well. That was not my only source, so there is not an issue. Thanks for letting me know there was a citation issue. Rublamb (talk) 17:10, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Zebulon Baird Vance Monument
I appreciate your effort to improve the article. However, I question how much of the large amount of information about this monument is really an improvement to the article. At this point, I will assume anything about the monument itself can stay. But what you added about Vance himself may be better suited to the article about the man. We can discuss and reach a compromise, though I was hoping to find others who would help.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  15:31, 6 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I am fine with the section on Vance being reduced. Actually, I had already moved some of it to Vance page previously, but really didn't want to get involved with that article. I started on the monument as a side project to working on the architect, Richard Sharp Smith. With regards to the text about Vance, there was a lot there==especially the quotes from local people as to why they did or did not support the monument==before I started editing. (Most of the controversy section has grammar and prose issues; sorry I didn't fix everything). Meaning others are involved and may have opinions. Since the monument is gone, the debate may or may not be relevant to anyone anymore. My thought was that it did make sense to have both the positive and negative aspects of Vance stated since it was a debate about the man and his worthiness for a monument. Maybe just not as much as was there. Does that make sense? Rublamb (talk) 15:49, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll see what I can do about adding to the Vance article. I'm sure more of what you added about him can stay with the monument. I just don't know how much. I'm working on what I didn't add to the controversy section as I find it.


 * In the meantime, please make your comments here.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  16:17, 6 April 2022 (UTC)


 * You said you didn't want to get involved with the Vance article, but I see you did. I'll trust everything you added is fine.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  17:49, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. You were correct that it was lacking content, and I decided to see what I could do. I had other projects on my list--but the great thing about Wikipedia is that articles don't have deadlines Rublamb (talk) 19:38, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * There's just so much there and I wouldn't know what should and should not be there. Anyway, anything about the man is probably all right.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  16:39, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Honestly, as somewhat of an expert in 19th century western North Carolina history, I did have a good idea as to what should be included on Vance. I just try to avoid giving Confederates more space in Wikipedia as there is already a great deal of representation. But the Vance article, like the monument article, should be up to B status now. That is a far as I try to take things. Thanks for the push/reminder that this article was wanting. I even moved more from the monument to the bio. Rublamb (talk) 21:42, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * And I appreciate all the work. I misread one of your latest additions, and I was unaware as I guess the Asheville Citizen-Times didn't cover this, but I thought I read they're still trying to put the monument back up. While this sort of goes against what Wikipedia is all about, I just want to say I would support that. It's an iconic structure in Asheville and if a place could be found and a reason could be found to justify it, I really hope the other court case leads to that happening. Gloria Victis was moved to a better place. Those men served. I doubt they actually supported slavery but they were fighting for what was at the time their country.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  19:30, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * See the last paragraph under Law Suits, indicating that the 26th voted to appeal to the state Supreme Court. According to that article, they are now waiting for a similar case to be heard and to find out if the Supreme Court decides to hear the 26th's appeal. If you can find more in the Citizen-Times, do add it to the article--I have to wait for it to show up in Newspapers.com. Several years ago when the threat to the monument became serious, I was contacted by several people in Asheville for my opinion and what I knew about its history. I know people on both sides--lots of respect for all. But it was an incredible work of art and one of the most iconic structures in Asheville. Rublamb (talk) 20:52, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * If you are in North Carolina, ProQuest has the Citizen-Times if you go to a library. I just haven't seen what you saw.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  20:21, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Mara Rockliff has been accepted
 Mara Rockliff, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Mara_Rockliff help desk] . Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Thanks again, and happy editing! Missvain (talk) 19:24, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Bevin Prince edit
I appreciate your effort to add a cited date of birth to Bevin Prince. Unfortunately, IMDb is not a reliable source (see WP:IMDB), so it cannot be used to support a date of birth. I have removed the date of birth and the IMDb citations that I found in the article. Eddie Blick (talk) 22:13, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Eddie Blick Thanks for sharing that list. Had not seen that before--now I have to figure out another way to document films and music for actors and musicians (since discogs is red on the list too). I will have to put on my librarian hat and search for her birth record. A lot of effort for someone I had never heard of her until I tried to clean up her unsourced page. Thanks again. Rublamb (talk) 01:57, 1 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your response. Many people are not so polite when I post messages like that. I appreciate your interest in trying to add sources to articles. Trying to find reliable sources is sometimes frustrating. Unfortunately, many articles use IMDb and other unreliable sources, which can lead people to think that they are acceptable. I try to remove all that I see, but that's just the proverbial drop in the bucket. If you have not already seen WP:USERGENERATED, you might want to read it for names of more unacceptable sources. Also, are you aware that filmreference.com is not reliable? I found it listed in WikiProject Film/Resources and continue to remove it from many pages. I have accumulated a list of my own at User:Teblick/Reliable Sources. I probably should change the title to "Unreliable sources", because they compose the bulk of the page. You are welcome to look at it and use it for guidance if you wish. Eddie Blick (talk) 02:20, 1 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Eddie Blick Funny, I was thinking how nice it was to have someone contact me to explain why you made a change. But you are speaking my language re. credible sources. I can't believe that I didn't know about IMDb! I am going back to fix the pages I did this month--so you don't have toRublamb (talk) 02:33, 1 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry that you have to re-do those, but it's for the best. My main focus now is removing unsourced dates of birth from articles about living people -- another "drop in the bucket" situation. Eventually I will get tired of contending with having dates of birth restored with no citations and move on from that challenge. Eddie Blick (talk) 02:40, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad tidings again, but your use of U.S., Index to Public Records, 1994-2019 to support the birth date has a problem of its own. WP:BLPPRIMARY says that public records are not to be used "to support assertions about a living person." I know that you are trying hard to find an acceptable source, but that paragraph is specific. I have not reverted your addition because I thought you might have found an alternate source that you can substitute. If not, you might want to just leave the article with no date of birth. Sometimes information that we would like to have is just not available from a source that we can use. Eddie Blick (talk) 02:48, 2 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Eddie Blick]] I just deleted my prior response about how Ancestry isn't a primary source. Got it now! Wikipedia has a section acknowledges the differences between how it and scholars view primary sources. I was evaluating from the wrong perspective, so really appreciate your encouragement for me to take the time and understand. I am now sharing your frustration with DOB. And the former tv star is a perfect example. Her DOB is all over the Internet on blogs, fan pages, and IMDb. But these aren’t reliable sources. I can verify her DOB with Ancestry, but really shouldn’t as this is considered primary by Wikipedia. So, we cannot publish her DOB even though we know for a fact (until there is an obituary). Urggg.

I read through a lot of info, some of it twice. Ancestry is red on the list of reliable sources, but the explanation says, “Ancestry.com is a genealogy site that hosts a database of primary source documents including marriage and census records. Some of these sources may be usable under WP:BLPPRIMARY, but secondary sources, where available, are usually preferred.” However, WP:BLPPRIMARY is pretty vague about exceptions. This all makes the most sense to me when considered from the perspective of privacy. WP:BLPPRIVACY basically asks, "should we even publish a DOB?" If the person in question has self-published this info or their DOB is all over the internet, the answer is: publish. If the only place you can find it is going to a source like Ancestry, the answer is no.

WP:DOB says “If …the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year, provided that there is a reliable source for it.”  Year only seems to fit for most of the bios I have tried to fluff. And will make it a lot easier to find in a usable source. Although, I am beginning to think your approach of just deleting is the easiest and not even trying may be the best.

Sorry this was so long. Sometimes “talking” helps me thinks. LOL. I am really glad that you found me and have given advice. Big, big help. Rublamb (talk) 06:12, 2 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I like your rational approach regarding date of birth. Unfortunately, many dates of birth that I remove are restored (unsourced) by IP editors, so that I can't contact them about it. Some non-IP editors that I have contacted are offended that I removed their addition. One replied with a post that listed about a dozen web sites that gave the subject's OOB and said that I should see which source(s) met my requirements and then add the date myself with the appropriate citation(s). In my reply, I explained that the links I had put in the earlier message pointed to not my requirements but standards set up by Wikipedia.


 * I find Wikipedia's guidelines about primary sources to be confusing, so I avoid them as much as possible. When I create an article about a person, if I don't find a date of birth (or death or marriage) in a reliable secondary source (ususally a magazine or newspaper) I leave it out.


 * I agree about the benefits of discussion. If you have other topics you would like to discuss with me, feel free to post a message on my talk page or write via email (eddieblick@gmail.com). I'm still learning about working on Wikipedia, but I will be glad to help you if I can. Eddie Blick (talk) 22:22, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 25
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Reid & Reid, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cliff House.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Michael D. Williams moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Michael D. Williams, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Paul W (talk) 09:00, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Ways to improve Michael D. Williams
Hello, Rublamb,

Thank you for creating Michael D. Williams.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

"Please review Wikipedia's guidance on notability for authors (WP:NAUTHOR) and also consider the reliability of several cited sources (WP:RS). Some are blogs (not reliable); interviews may be regarded as primary sources (WP:INTERVIEWS); and citations from an author's publisher are not independent"

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with. Remember to sign your reply with. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Paul W (talk) 08:59, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Michael D. Williams has been accepted
 Michael D. Williams, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Michael_D._Williams help desk] . Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Thanks again, and happy editing! Naraht (talk) 21:31, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Template:ISBN
Hi, are you familiar with the ISBN template? With an article like Mara Rockliff where there's a huge list of books, you can use this to cut down on the otherwise ballooning list of footnotes. -- asilvering (talk) 02:42, 5 July 2022 (UTC)


 * asilvering, I am familiar with it, but have not used it before because the lists I have generated were either pre-ISBN or so short that it was not worth switching from visual editor to source editor. The reason I added so many sources to this article is a bit of a situation. I created this article in March. A few others edited and it was rate C class on the talk page. However, a couple of days ago, someone moved the article to draft, saying, “Not ready for mainspace, incubate in draftspace. Full of shop references. PROMO.” I am not connected in any way to Mara Rockliff, but did use publisher webpages for book titles and ISBN and some biographical info. Not enough to pull the article IMO. Not wanting to get in a dispute, I quickly found a bunch of new sources and made a few edits. Are you saying that if I use the ISBN template, no sources for the publications are needed? Thanks for your advice and suggestions. Rublamb (talk) 21:12, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * If you use the ISBN template, then you don't need footnotes that are just the bibliographic information for the book itself (since the ISBN clickthrough has that information). Or you could make the list using Template:Cite book and use the author mask variable to remove her name (or leave her name in, if it doesn't bother you). That makes it much easier for any AfC reviewer looking at it to figure out what footnotes are actually suggestive of any kind of notability claim (like reviews, for example), compared to the dozens that simply express "this book exists". This isn't the same as "no sources are needed" - the ISBN template (or a full Cite book that gives a google books URL or ISBN or something) makes the source clear. It just saves you on footnotes. Right now the draft has 96 footnotes, which is a ton for a draft that has very little non-list content. If you see that many footnotes on something at AfC, it usually means someone's trying to do a WP:REFBOMB, so it's more likely to make someone suspicious than it is likely to help your case that the article is "mainspace ready". (On that, I'm not really sure what the issue is. The moving editor didn't say "insufficient sources" but "full of shop references. PROMO." I don't know what the former means, and I don't see the WP:PROMO problems. I'm not confident that she's notable, but she's likely to be at least borderline.) -- asilvering (talk) 00:18, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That makes sense. I have added the ISBN template and removed some sources. Rockliff is notable--she has been nominated or received 3 of the 4 major awards for picture books. The fourth award is for illustrators. I was just trying to make a quick start to an article. Should have known better. Rublamb (talk) 21:13, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

May 2022
Thank you for your contributions. It seems that you may have added public domain content to one or more Wikipedia articles, such as John T. Downey. You are welcome to import appropriate public domain content to articles, but in order to meet the Wikipedia guideline on plagiarism, such content must be fully attributed. This requires not only acknowledging the source, but acknowledging that the source is copied. There are several methods to do this described at Plagiarism, including the usage of an attribution template. Please make sure that any public domain content you have already imported is fully attributed. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 20:18, 31 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Diannaa  John T. Downey was a pre-existing article that lacked sources. I found sources that backed the pre-existing content, and added new content with sources. I edited in good faith that the existing content was not plagiarized (although I fix plagiarism when I find it). I also added sources that I thought were sound, not plagiarized.  I personally do not believe in just copying content without quotation marks even if it is in public domain. If you will note, every single sentence that I added to Downey has a source. If you can be more specific about what part of this article was  plagiarized and what the public domain source was, I will be glad to try and fix it. Cheers. Rublamb (talk) 23:28, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 1
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Alfred Daniel Jones, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Democratic Party.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Delta Psi
, you are a serious contributor to Wikipedia, and your experience and 'ownership' instinct toward the Delta Psi / St. Anthony Hall article is appreciated. It's one of several thousand articles that are monitored by the Fraternity and Sorority Project, where a number of us work to improve quality, develop consistent formatting, upgrade weak pages to a standard, and continuously police for vandalism. You might consider joining.

You recently reverted several edits I made, noting that your intent was to make the style consistent within the article, using numbered footnotes, following the footnote style used elsewhere in the article. This particular article has extensive footnotes, perhaps to the point of excess; but I will leave that point to others to fuss about. But there is a method to the edits I made, which were intended to make the Delta Psi page consistent with others in its class. For some years we have moved away from the reference note format you are using on that page (while academically sound) to another, equally sound syntax. Ours is dynamic, and doesn't require as much upkeep as references evolve. Further, our model is to use a tag to call references with citations, and to use a  tag to call those EFN (Extended footnotes) that do NOT have citations. Yes, this means that in our more recent pages there is a Notes subheader and a References subheader.

Additionally, we've adopted a standard of italicizing chapter names and school names where those entities have gone dormant. This is why the Burlington College name was italicized. Coincidently, when I was reviewing this I realized that school name had a WL to a new and unrelated school that had held the same name. I've places requests elsewhere to help find information about the old school, which apparently closed in 1881.

Back to formatting, regarding any chapter list table, the Status field is kept quite short, as is the Notes field within tables. Details such as are shared via the chapter table here should be EFNs, not rendered into longer sentences in this field. This is discussed in the Templates section of our Project page.

Working on these pages, we hash these things out. You are obviously a pro, and we'd like to encourage you to work on additional GLO articles, exploring and adopting the standards we've set, and collaboratively challenging them with better suggestions. I will go back to the article on some of this, and hope this note will suffice to address your concerns. I welcome comments and dialog. Jax MN (talk) 18:00, 6 August 2022 (UTC)


 * AH - I see that the earlier Burlington was in New Jersey. Likely will need an article, but I'm pleased to see you've distinguished it from the Vermont school. Jax MN (talk) 18:05, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * When I made the changes, I didn't realize who had made them--sorry because I should have and would have checked in with you first. I work on various types of articles and it can be frustrating to find different standards between groups. I do learn as I go--and you have been great at helping me navigate fraternities. (The sports people are jerks--I got chewed out by a guy for using the full name of a college when I created an infobox because the sports people believe in abbreviating school names like a newspaper. Then, there's the opera person who doesn't believe having an infobox for a biographical article. And don't even get me started on the editors who do nothing but change the date format in citations==when those citation dates were automatically generated by Wikipedia!
 * I don't have a preference for whether or not we use a notes section or have notes in the reference section, but I think we should be consistent, with all notes being in the same place. My understanding was that Wikipedia doesn't care which style of notes or citations you use, but says to follow what you find already in place, rather than changing everything. You had previously placed notes for this article in the reference section. So my assumption would be that we would want either all notes mixed in the reference section OR move the existing notes to a new notes section at the bottom of the article. I usually edit in visual mode, which still doesn't have all the features of source editing, such as editing a notes table. I don't have an issue with others adding those features, but I am just less likely to do so--if that makes sense.
 * Unless I stumble onto something new while working on related biographies, I have taken this St. Anthony Hall article far and I can, which is what I like to do with pages that no one else has taken ownership of. The editors who typically follow me to proof read (which I always need) and look for errors have reviewed this as well. It may be GA ready? So yes, I am ready to move to another project in this subject area. My academic background is Victorian to WWII American history and on architectural history, so will probably look for another older group with cool buildings. However, your suggestion that I organize the St A notable members list into a table has led to my working on lots of stubs and creating new articles. In that process, I sidetrack to things like the Cosmos Club and the Metropolitan Club which I know you understand as we both share an interest in "secret" societies. Or elite scholarship programs or high schools articles. I have newspaper articles and obituaries gathered for maybe 10 more new St. A articles, but sometimes I need a break from old white dudes. Which reminds me, along the way, I have run into editors who turned articles I wrote about LGBTQ and female St As back to draft status, after the article already had a rating of C. I have suspicions on motives, but you just never know. On the flip side, an article I wrote about a St A who was a Titanic survivor now has passed on to other editors which is great. This, in some way, circles back to my starting point, that I learn as I go--and I do appreciate that you are one of the few I have run into that take the time to teach and encourage. So if you think something is needed, I have no problem with that. Peace. Rublamb (talk) 22:57, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Ha! I concur, that we've a myriad of style options and certainly agree about the rudeness of some editors.  People hide behind anonymity, and continually prove the maxim that when given a little power, power corrupts.  Or something like that.  Anyway, human nature devolves to a nastier, brutish reality when people are not constrained.  On a meta level, I think that will lead to a crack-up in anonymous social media and online activity, and a requirement for transparency.  Frankly, I wouldn't mind it.


 * Again, I thank you for your work, and your measured responsiveness. Quickly, the issue I have with some of the older reference models is that for complex articles, editors have to track the order of numbers, and reset these when content shifts.  Hence, for some years, we've been adjusting these when we can. They were prevalent among the earliest fraternal articles written. More recent articles are abandoning that style, where the name is a manually-created number.


 * As to the notes sections, they seem to me to be best placed immediately adjacent (after) a table, where they apply. Naraht and I are experimenting with styles, and have yet to apply a more advanced, labeled notes format.  We have both used some EFNs that are named, but a label would shift them to show up within a named section of a notes subheader. --It would even allow multiple areas for notes, pertaining to the content immediately preceding them.  The premise of the EFN, or Extended Footnote, is that the text may be too much to display in a small field of a table, but nevertheless have value to the reader.  Multiple notes subheaders may be required on complex pages.  Meanwhile, you are right in that I had previously been nesting both "notes" without a citation and actual references into a general reference subheader.  As time permits I am going back to my previous work to adjust these and split them.  Another editor, BrownEyedGirl has been doing a lot of work on references themselves, fixing bare references by putting them into full citation format.
 * Thanks again for all your work. Again, we share many interests, including these secret societies, and architectural treasures. Best regards, Jax MN (talk) 17:29, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Minor point
On the St. Anthony Hall page, one of the popular culture lines is this: Do you know? In the few times where I have noted a possessive against a chapter, I have been including the apostrophe and "s" within the italics. It's a minor point, but I don't know whether you've seen a rule about this in the WP:MOS. I think the nowiki tag is unnecessary, as the text renders a single apostrophe properly without assuming it is part of the two-apostrophe string that forces italics. It just looks better with the "s" also italicized. Your call. Obviously, you can delete this dumb comment once you make a determination. Jax MN (talk) 21:22, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The cover art of rock band Vampire Weekend's first album is of the Columbia chapter 's ballroom chandelier, taken at one of the band's early shows.


 * I agree that it looks better to include it with the italic. And I don't know which is correct. But on other pages, people have gone behind me and removed the 's from the link. It is possible that this was an issue with nowiki that was since fixed. Rublamb (talk) 22:41, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

"Michael D. Williams" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Michael D. Williams and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 12 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. MB 14:02, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 23
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
 * Snatches of Pink
 * added a link pointing to Michael Rank
 * The Yayhoos
 * added a link pointing to Terry Anderson

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 8
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Art Deco architecture in the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Harrison County Courthouse.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

File names
PLEASE, do not "fix" file names! If there is an error, ask on Commons for a change to the file name. "Fixing" spelling or capitalization will only prevent the file from displaying. Sumanuil. 00:58, 8 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the tip. It was not on purpose (Grammarly) and I was in the middle of fixing it. Please honor my GOCE notice--I just fixed the problem photos and could not save them because of your edits. Rublamb (talk) 01:01, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

OK, just be more careful. And maybe using Grammarly isn't the best idea. It...makes mistakes. Sumanuil. 01:10, 8 September 2022 (UTC)


 * It was my first time using Grammarly with a live Wikipedia page. This article is so long that I thought it might help. But I was not impressed. Thanks. Rublamb (talk) 01:15, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 15
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Art Deco architecture in the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New Hope, Virginia.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Please double check your mass edits
There are a few typos in some of your edits, such as here where you wrote "epsorts" instead of "esports". Please watch out for those tiny mistakes. All the best, Yue 🌙 05:22, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Andrew Huebner has been accepted
 Andrew Huebner, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Andrew_Huebner help desk] . Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Thanks again, and happy editing! Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:34, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Andrew Huebner has a new comment
 I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Andrew Huebner. Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 17:02, 15 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks. That's why I ran it through draft review, rather than just publishing. I wasn't sure how to clean up that issue. Rublamb (talk) 01:21, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

UP Halcyon
Thank you for your deep dive into the AfD proposal about UP Halcyon. I usually don't work with the Philippine groups, as they aren't front and center in my lane. However, this group did strike me as valid, and the article wasn't typical of the puffery that some other Philippine fraternal groups tend to claim. So I went to bat. The Deletionists sometimes pop up in a chorus of "me too" votes to delete, and I thought we'd done good work to improve the page (a valid concern) and proved the point.

Really, I just do not think Wikipedia and its audience is served by banning all pages without top-tier national media coverage.

Anyway, I just corresponded with the non-admin closer of the page, who declined to give it another week. But s/he was cordial. Following policy, I posted the article for a Deletion Review. I thought you made some exceptional points in favor of notability. Jax MN (talk) 20:58, 13 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks. The topic was not really my thing either (I was working on an architect stub), but this was so much better than most articles I come across in terms of writing and organization. And with the sources we both found, no one should have been challenging its right to exist.
 * When I was getting my library masters, we were taught to only use certain credible sources when selecting books to order. Now, the profession has changed that to accommodate diversity. For example, queer science fiction is not yet getting reviewed in Library Journal, but it is worthy of inclusion in a public library collection. So, librarians have expanded their list of sources for book reviews, sometimes even using blogs. I think credible sources are needed in Wikipedia, but I lower my expectation to mid-tier publications and shorter articles when finding sources for a topic that is under-represented in Wikipedia (and the Internet). I also follow the guideline that "it is a work in progress" rather than deleting immediately.
 * A request for a review is a good idea, but I am not optimistic. Rublamb (talk) 21:30, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes. I hope that more users, like you and  will regularly monitor those occasional deletion efforts.  I am mindful that a fair understanding of the rules for such discussions indicate that voters should have a working knowledge or expertise in the topic at hand. I thought the OP's sudden PROD of this page was spurious, and unnecessary. Our Project group has a number of members who can and should manage the upkeep (and occasional deletion) of such pages.  Where I can, I encourage broader involvement with the category, rather than "just" focusing on a single group's article, where an editor was a member. Jax MN (talk) 21:40, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The UP Halcyon article is back, as the admins accepted my appeal that the AfD discussion was abruptly closed soon after you and I added all those references. It should have stayed up, or the whole "delete" matter dropped.  We're back to where the matter was about two weeks ago, where editors can vote to keep or delete.  Jax MN (talk) 20:56, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. I had checked and left a comment yesterday. There were no negative votes at the time!!! Rublamb (talk) 21:07, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 10
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lyn Lifshin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Barre, Vermont.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Sydney M. Smith
I have this subject in mind for an eventual GA run, just FYI. There is much more to be said. BD2412 T 06:35, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

DYK
I nominated an article that you created for the Wikipedia main page under Did you know - Template:Did you know nominations/Julian M. Wright. SL93 (talk) 06:32, 9 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much. I am honored. Rublamb (talk) 18:46, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. The article was approved for promotion, but it could take over a month to reach the main page because of the huge Did you know backlog. SL93 (talk) 09:09, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Bairds
Hi Rublamb. I saw your efforts on the Baird's article. Did you know that the Illinois archive is the inheritor of all of Baird's files? Carroll took over researching for that resource at the University of Illinois when it became apparent that there would be no further print edition, after Banta and the Foundation had shopped the project around, then donated their files to Illinois. Hence, it truly is an expansion of that same reference. I've spoken with him, and regularly correspond with Fran Becque, and will often send updates when my own research finds an error in the archive, or a typo, or new info.

Carroll has done a marvelous job at researching new fraternities and sororities, and co-ed groups, using direct communication with the various groups, web resources and access to a vast collection of collegiate yearbooks. Fran insists on giving him first position credit. This is why I crafted that standard format citation the way I did. The bulk of Carroll's work has been to document multicultural groups that came on the scene after 1991. He hasn't had the bandwidth to expand on the professional and honor groups, with a few exceptions that blur the lines, so for these we have to fall back on the published editions. But the rest of the F&S archive is absolutely a continuation of the same material.

I think you unfairly severed the connection between the archive and the predecessor volumes. Is there a better way you could put this, which effectively directs people to the Archive? I offered up standard citations on that article as a separate section, which I find to have been useful templates so often helpful to cite on our pages. You moved the entry for the Archive, and deleted the note about how to contact the archive staff with new information. I think that should be restored. Of course some of the references could be improved, which I believe you did. Jax MN (talk) 00:45, 15 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Take another look at the article now that I have refreshed it (with sources). I went through all of the usual searches and databases, but found very little in the way of usable references or content to add to this article. However, I did find references for existing content that was unsourced. I added the Archive to the infobox. I also named its updated section "Subsequent publication". There, I mentioned that the Archive can be updated but do not believe it is correct to provide a link in the submission form under Wikipedia's guidelines. However, the Archive's website in linked as both a reference and in the external reference section. The latter is updated (the Baird's Manual links are all in the "Editions" section as sources), giving the Archive more visibility there. I hope this addresses your concerns, while also improving the readability and value of the article overall. If you still want to provide more information about submissions to the Archive, I believe a efn would be the best approach as such information verges on promotional vs. informational.
 * I value your knowledge and guidance when editing fraternity and sorority articles, and have learned much from you that I have applied in other areas of Wikipedia editing. I realize that you have know more that I do about the Archive. You are lucky to have been in communication with those who have compiled this information; it is really a niche specialty and they are it leading experts. Regardless of the backstory and your personal knowledge, the citation for the Archive must be created using the information provided by the resource itself. This is no different from any other content added to Wikipedia. I worked in serials at libraries at both UNC and NCSU, including creating records for OCLC that were then accesses by libraries around the world. In my professional opinion and without going into boring details of how librarians determine a new publication vs. a continuation/name change of an existing publication, the Archive is not an actual continuation of Baird's Manual. In fact, its publisher specifically explains how this is a unique and new resource. Therefore, it is incorrect to include Wm. Raimond Baird as the Archive's editor/author and to reference Baird's Manual in the citation for the archive. I hope this makes sense. Rublamb (talk) 17:22, 15 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the dialog, too. And your adherence to standard practice vis-a-vis library ref syntax.
 * My understanding is, there would be no Archive or Almanac of Fraternities and Sororities had Baird's not existed. The records transferred into the University of Illinois formed the basis and bulk of the resultant trove of information now published as PDFs up until 1991.  These records were then improved by Lurding's original research and his own sources, which he then transferred into the Archive.  His contributions include changes to existing societies, corrections, changes that occurred after publication of the 20th edition of Baird's, and the addition of numerous new, often multicultural or cultural-affinity organizations.  Carroll is still involved, and appears to review contributions that come in as corrections, prior to their being put into queue for publication.  I think Fran's role is to serve as the lead archivist (editing the PDFs) at this time, at least for this section of the archive, while there is another full time archivist and others who have admin rights to update the PDFs. She is (under) paid for her excellent work, while Carroll's contribution was strictly volunteer.
 * The article's links to the Archive/Almanac are nestled within references now. I think it is fair to promote the Archive/Almanac in a stronger way, as the legitimate successor to Baird's. Jax MN (talk) 17:55, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It is also listed in external resources. Rublamb (talk) 03:12, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Zeta Psi
, I saw your move to use the word Prime rather than First, and similar changes, on the Zeta Psi list. Did you note what Zeta Psi officially calls these? Or were you just standardising? We have a smattering of old chapters of old nationals that have "(first)" appended to some names, and others with "(Prime)", etc. Usage is irregular, depending on the national. I tend to favor using whatever they use, if they have decided, and then when we cannot find a directive, opt for simply using "(First)", etc., if they haven't clarified. Eventually one hopes that a national directive will label these as they prefer, on their own chapter lists, and then we can follow. Do you agree? Such labels are quite old, and it appears came from the work of national staff perhaps a century or more ago, so some may not have bothered to clarify.

In some cases, our partner in the Project, has added these, probably working from old historical lists, and may want to weigh in. I'd like to be consistent. Jax MN (talk) 23:07, 27 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Hope you are well. I checked on the Zeta Phi article since it was showing as still unfinished on the list--I realized I had responded to Naraht but had not actually looked at the problem he was having with this list. I do use Prime rather than First when multiple chapters have the same name, following your lead when you helped me set my first chapter list. Since then, I noticed this is what the Almanac does (without parenthesis) and figured that was the style guide to follow for naming chapters in Wikipedia lists. I have not seen First used before until today (much as Naraht was confused by my use of Dormant instead of Inactive). It would be good to agree on this as part of our style instructions.
 * In terms of what Zeta Psi uses, I don't know as I stuck to the secondary source for my quick check of dates and names, and that was the source cited. I know Naraht will contact the fraternity or sorority sometimes for clarification or missing facts, but IMO unless they are directing us to a book or source that is not their website, we get into tricky territory. If there is a citable source that names these chapters differently, I agree that should be followed. Otherwise, it makes sense to me for us to copy the style of the Almanac or Baird's since that is the main source for chapter lists and dates. But if you don't think it matters, I will leave it as is next time. After all, you are my guide in these matters and no one needs extra work. Thanks. Rublamb (talk) 23:45, 27 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Also, I did not attempt to fix it, but I was a bit confused by the mix of deceased and inactive. Especially since a chapter that went inactive in the 1990s was listed as deceased but ones from the 1970s and 1980s were still inactive. Is this still in the works?Rublamb (talk) 23:54, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Bill Bamberger has been accepted
 Bill Bamberger, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Bill_Bamberger help desk] . Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Thanks again, and happy editing! ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 17:06, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Glover Crane Arnold has been accepted
 Glover Crane Arnold, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Glover_Crane_Arnold help desk] . Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Thanks again, and happy editing! >>> Ingenuity . talk ; 22:18, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Archive tool
You've been using an interesting tool, the OneClickArchiver. Most recently, on Talk:List of Beta Theta Pi chapters, among others. Does that tool have a way to automate the creation of a link to the subordinate archive page? As it stands, there is no link to that archive on the talk page. Jax MN (talk) 23:15, 28 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, it automatically adds a search box for the archive in the header section of the talk page. Sometimes it takes a while for the archive link to show up, but usually, it is pretty quick. I started using this tool to clear the old bot notes and now use it with my personal talk page. I think it is also a great way to move old discussions off of the best spot on the talk page.Rublamb (talk) 23:29, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Stylistic item
Good afternoon, Rublamb. I saw the edit to Beta Sigma Psi. You compressed the list of founders back into body text, but I think these should be left as bulleted items. Many of the GLO articles use bulleted lists for these persons, and while we've not had a lengthy dialog about the matter, my reasoning is that by breaking up the wall of text, the white space around these bullets helps make the page more readable. It's a stylistic choice. If we continue to compress these on all our monitored pages it would mean perhaps 800 or 1,000 pages will be affected. Your thoughts? Jax MN (talk) 17:48, 2 November 2022 (UTC)


 * In making that specific edit, I was following MOS, specifically MOS:LISTBASICS. In this case, the data involved was simple and understandable as text, meaning that text is preferred over a list. In the Cosmos Club article's history section, there is a good example of founders that are in a list format because the data included is more complex and would result in a difficult sentence. My understanding of MOS is that lists are okay for publications, a chronology, and long/complex data, but should otherwise be avoided. As a result, I try to convert simple lists into text whenever I find them. I am not advocating huge cleanup project but have fixed this on several of fraternal articles as I have come across them. Regardless of MOS, I personally think of most fraternal founders lists as calling attention to a bunch of people who do not appear to meet the standard of notability. However, I also acknowledge that each WP has its own format and I don't feel so strongly about this specific MOS topic to challenge that. Not that we have conflict here, but when thinking about setting guidelines and standards for things like this within the WP, we can always get the guiding advice of a neutral MOS guru. Rublamb (talk) 23:11, 2 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi. I saw the interesting MOS piece you referenced, on Listbasics.  Where discussing the nuances of architectural changes and variant styles in NYC, as in the example on that page, I think exposition in body text makes sense.  I certainly can see its draw, and note your regular additions to architectural pages where you may first have become aware of this guideline.  Again, those styles build on each other, and the body text captures that nuance.  In the case of fraternity founders, these are all "of a type" and are not explained as being iterative, or shifting in their effectiveness or position within the ranks of founders.  (There may have been a primary founder in some cases, but essentially, they are remarkable just for being in the initial group.)  There was one medical fraternity, Nu Sigma Nu I think, that had as one of its founders one of the Mayo brothers.  His name is Wikilinked, but the others are not.  This is the reasonable way we denote those founders who have gone on to notability beyond or outside of their role as GLO founders.  The other, to my mind, competing dialog against this MOS guideline, is that the use of bulleted lists here provides helpful white space and formatting clarity.  Now that such usage is consistent, I think readers come to expect it in this class of articles, and thus helps draw the eye toward - or away from - early historical summaries which are being researched. Jax MN (talk) 16:56, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I first came across the guidelines for bulleted lists in maintenance notes for biographical and city articles. I don't know of a current example to share, but something like a list of educational institutions/degrees in a biographical article. Since then, I have run across editors who will automatically delete long lists when added to an article, especially since lists tend to lack sources. This is tied into the "what Wikipedia is/is not" which I don't claim to fully understand; I just know it is connected to the highest-level editors I have run into.
 * I agree that founders belong in the organizational article. I mentioned this previously because, visually, a bulleted list calls attention to the names and implies notability that usually isn't there. I do add founders to fraternal histories but will remove them from a notable list if that is their only claim to fame. If this sounds harsh, most editors will delete names from city or school notable lists if they lack a Wikipedia article. I, on the other hand, am fine with a NY Times or Washington Post obituary as a reference. That way I know that someone (me) can go back and draft an article at a later date.
 * I used to do print and web graphic design professionally and do understand your desire for white space. In general, MOS seems to think that the default and built-in spacing are adequate. I try to enhance readability through short paragraphs and frequent section breaks. Of course, as you have taught me, tables also make long lists easier to read.
 * Within fraternal articles, I am pretty sure there is a mix of the two styles: bulleted and narrative. We have three featured articles on the WP's page. One has a list and the other two do not. The former has a ton of founders and I agree with the use of a list there as per MOS. Now knowing your thought process, I don't see a reason to change the founder's lists to text. Nor do I see a reason to change existing text to a list. Does that make sense to you? Leave as is? I am thinking specifically about St. Anthony Hall where the founders' names are part of a narrative story. It makes sense for that situation and a list would be problematic since Baird gave mixed info in various editions.
 * But--I do want to apply this conversation to the article I was working on the other day that has lists of every convention and every service project. Is this one of those cases where a list makes the content look important, but the info is not encyclopedic? In other words, is my gut telling me this falls under the "What Wikipedia is not" category? Rublamb (talk) 18:28, 3 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Good dialog. Picking out a couple of items in your response, I fully endorse your instinct to remove founders from lists of notables, unless they have other notability.  Noting them in the early history is adequate - you are right.  I also agree that inclusion of convention themes and places in a list is, to use a phrase, 'rather thin gruel'.  I've somewhat reluctantly left them be, where other historical content is thin, in hopes that by comparison to other pages readers with historical context will add more helpful commentary. The convention lists may, in this regard, provide prompts for further writing.  I had the sense that if I just followed the trend of aggressively cutting any content that didn't meet the highest bar, it would brown off the newbies and run counter to our aim of building up good new editors.  I am convinced I was right in that sentiment. Some of the veteran editors can be so damn prickly, so brusque in their dismissal of new editor offerings, and for these routine, non-controversial pages this kind of treatment is unnecessary.  (I also tend to be an Inclusionist, not a Deletionist, referencing the long-simmering Wikipedia argument.) Finally, you mentioned the three featured articles on our Project page (I think).  It might amuse you to know that the nomination of these articles pre-dates my involvement, and may even pre-date Naraht's...  There may have been other Project-wide editors involved before us, now gone, but as I recall, when first beginning work on these pages we saw a mess as far as the eye could see: our tracking Watchlist was only 15% of its present size, many pages languished as stubs, or were written by Greek Life detractors, and skewed accordingly, edit wars and exposures of ritual secrets was widespread, and there were only a few long articles, like those cited as Good Articles, which in my opinion may not be representative of "our best" today.  I don't want to pick on them, but the articles for the Divine nine were/are plagued by puffery, bias, and much inconsequential, non-encyclopedic content.  I think some editors fear making broad edits to them so as not to appear racially motivated.  Because of this, IMHO, those pages suffer in mediocrity. Jax MN (talk) 19:11, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You are right about including rather than deleting. At least, that is the way I am. It is why we both fought the Philippines group. And why I will look for sources for content rather than just deleting it. I agree about those articles, but did not want to say... Being brave, last night I added links to the notables list of one and corrected some names as I found their articles. I even edited in source mode which you know I hate. Maybe updating our featured articles is my next project (if I even finish the Cosmos Club list which I am creating from an old directory). But I may disappear for a while to work on the November copy editors drive. Rublamb (talk) 19:36, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Cary, North Carolina
The article Cary, North Carolina you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Cary, North Carolina for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Example -- Example (talk) 20:20, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I have no idea why it says Example as the editor. SL93 (talk) 20:24, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for you communication about the ary, North Carolina GA review. I believe I have addressed all items on the list. However, there are two items that need explanation. There was a suggestion that other churches be included in the history section. I found those churches already in the article--in chronological order in the 1870s section. The first church was built in the 1840s which is why it is mentioned in a different paragraph. Also, there was a question about the sources for the second sentence in the introduction. When I looked at this, I found that 1) the text itself cites the U.S. Census as the source which is allowed per MOS, and 2) the data in question is linked to Wikipedia articles that rank cities. I tried to make these article links more visible with hopes that it will make more sense to reviewers. I also changed the citation to one that is easier to navigate since the comment indicated difficulty in getting to Cary's data through the main U.S. Census portal. Is letting you know this through my talk page adequate? Thanks, Rublamb (talk) 14:40, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I ended up removing the thing about the churches. I was mixing up a couple articles that I have been looking at. I'm sorry for my late response. I was thinking that you would respond on the GA review page and that is where updates should be added. SL93 (talk) 21:20, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I have been watching your updates to the article and everything looks fine now that the notable people list is referenced. I still don't understand why GAs require those citations, but whatever I guess. I will copy and paste this discussion to the GA review page and close it as passed. SL93 (talk) 21:30, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Bond Park
Well well well, consider me embarrassed! I should have done more research into the matter rather than finding the first source that agreed with me in the article and doubled-down. I'll definitely endeavor to do better next time. Good work, and happy editing! — Sirdog (talk) 23:54, 8 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Not a big deal--you just looked at my original sources that started the error. The park map has it misspelled too! Truly honest mistakes on both our parts Rublamb (talk) 23:57, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Iroquois Mythology
I looked at your recent edits to this article, and find them generally positive. However two things I noticed were that you changed plural to singular, for example in the case of Jo-go-ah (but also others), where this is inappropriate, and you edited some of the quotes which should have been left as-is. Peter Flass (talk) 05:02, 18 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads up. I was editing with Grammarly and was careless. i reverted my edits and started over.Rublamb (talk) 21:00, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hello, Rublamb. Thank you for creating Gregory Gray Garland Jr.. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with. Please remember to sign your reply with ~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

&maltese; SunDawn &maltese;    (contact)   03:13, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Your recent contributions to Davidson's Fort
This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Davidson's Fort, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. 114.122.132.91 (talk) 02:56, 4 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I have no idea what you are talking about. I have been fixing broken urls in citations, adding content, and adding sources. This is Wikipedia article improvement 101. There is no vandalism. However, your message falls under WikiBullying, specifically, WP:No-edit orders. Rublamb (talk) 03:25, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hello, Rublamb

Thank you for creating Mike Edwards (American journalist).

User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with. Please remember to sign your reply with ~.

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

&maltese; SunDawn &maltese;    (contact)   10:46, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Stockton B. Colt
The article Stockton B. Colt you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Stockton B. Colt for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Ganesha811 -- Ganesha811 (talk) 18:04, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Stockton B. Colt
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Stockton B. Colt you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ganesha811 -- Ganesha811 (talk) 14:02, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors December 2022 Newsletter
Sent by Baffle gab1978 via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:26, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 12
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Cosmos Club members, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Thomas Wilson.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:27, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors December 2022 Newsletter error
The GOCE December 2022 newsletter, as sent on 9 December, contains an erroneous start date for our December Blitz. The Blitz will start on 11 December rather than on 17 December, as stated in the newsletter. I'm sorry for the mistake and for disrupting your talk page; thanks for your understanding. Sent by Baffle gab1978 via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:30, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Memory hole - Fiji
Hi Rublamb. A few days ago you ran the onetouch archive tool on Talk:List of social fraternities and sororities, moving one or more discussions about Phi Gamma Delta's name to the archive. (The archive link for that page is missing, and I don't immediately know how to create it.)

Would you create that archive link, and perhaps a simple note to it, regarding Fiji? That national has a peculiar rule about not using their Greek letters. Wikipedia editors aren't beholden to abide by that rule, so we have maintained a lengthy response on the matter on that Talk page. It was something to reference when the discussion came up, or when a well-meaning editor deleted the Greek letters and replaced them with Fiji. Frankly, the matter became monotonous, coming up perhaps four times a year.

The main article for Phi Gamma Delta has editors notes after the first instance of the Greek letters, and a substantial discussion on its Talk page. Jax MN (talk) 16:29, 31 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I added a talkheader and the archive box came with. ???? Rublamb (talk) 16:41, 31 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I had to refresh the page. Thanks. Did you see the rather extensive FAQ on the Talk page for Phi Gamma Delta? Jax MN (talk) 17:03, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I have now. That is crazy. Rublamb (talk) 17:19, 31 December 2022 (UTC)


 * There were chronic edit wars about this. Even more than the annoying insistence on inserting the word "The" before mention of Ohio State University. Jax MN (talk) 17:30, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Christian Fraternities
I intend (and hit an e/c when I tried. :) )to split the notes section so that there is a founded column before it. That seems to be a column that makes sense. Not sure what "Type" is intended to be: Methodist vs. Catholic?Naraht (talk) 09:40, 29 December 2022 (UTC)


 * @Naraht Type is cloning what is used on the Christian Sorority article. It includes collegiate vs non-collegiate. I don't know whether or not this list also includes both types of groups--there was a talk page mention of adding the non-colliegiate to the article. The sorority article also has a column for Emphasis which would be the place for specific churches, African American, social, etc. I have a feeling both were set up by JAX. I am not stuck on having it, but suspect there would be a reaction if I tried to remove it from the sorority page. Does it make sense to have these two articles match as much as possible? Rublamb (talk) 10:05, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Naraht Also, I had not decided if we should have another column for founding institution or use an efn. I am leaning toward column because it is easier to view and this is a key fact that all groups have. Sound like you agree? Since you have worked on this one before, please do jump in. Honestly, I am playing with what we should included in these specialized lists. I think I would rank founding location over some of the other columns. Rublamb (talk) 10:12, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Heading back to bed. I expect to add founding location for these during the day. I'll take a look at what the Xtian sorority page has as well for parallelism. Let's see what has to say. Personally on Sorority, having Christian is completely repetitive, and Multicultural is pretty questionable as well (what does that mean, takes both Latin American and Filipino Catholics?) At *best* that seems to be Catholic vs. Lutheran (vs. Baptist?)Naraht (talk) 10:37, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping. I've a couple points to offer:
 * About the "Type" field. The Template instructions call for this to show broad categories, where "Social (for Social or Academic), Professional, Honor, Recognition, or Service are the main five."  I'd been placing the notion of Collegiate or Non-collegiate in the emphasis field, such as "Non-collegiate, Lesbian", were it to come up, skipping the word Collegiate where it is implied, and just inserting "Southeast Asian" or "Multicultural", etc.  This was an expansion of use of this original field in the template, which it seems had been originally developed for defining the emphasis of professional or honor societies.
 * About "Multicultural". It appears that Catholic, Jewish, Black and Hispanic fraternities were first formed in reaction to the desire to "have our own clubs", sort of a safe space movement; one of several drivers. At some of the Ivys or at schools of the Alpha chapters of these groups, a common reason for formation was the fact that these students were broadly disallowed from joining traditional societies.  Yet it is important to note that there were very few Black students, and having a chapter of their own also appears to have been a driver...  (It's tiring to always be viewed as a token.)  Witness the Philippinesotans group at Minnesota (1904?) or Alpha Zeta at Cornell (1890).  These were not so much as examples of insularity, but the early 'cultural' organizations appear to have formed a refuge where those outside of the dominant WASP population could hang out with "people like themselves."  Later, as entrance rules for fraternities relaxed and with the influx of students from the GI Bill, the surviving cultural fraternities either stuck more rigidly to serving only their tight community, or they broadened from, say, Latina to true multiculturalism, welcoming everyone. Thus the multicultural groups today, while historically mono-culture, have mostly moved toward multiculturalism, and will accept anybody, as a practical matter. Today, these groups will lead with "we are multicultural" while the traditional fraternities will offer "we are diverse", coming at the issue of inclusion from two directions. Where they wear it on their sleeve as important to their identity as an organization, I'd note it in the Emphasis field. Jax MN (talk) 17:06, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Good to know about the Type heading as it might let us merge some of the lists on the Jewish, Asian, etc. articles.
 * It seems like multicultural was code for "we accept diverse people" back in the day when such things were unusual (the term emerged during the Civil Rights movement). It also became a way for groups that were once singular to announce that there was a change in who could join; such as moving from exclusively Catholic to anyone. Today, it is against the law to deny someone entry into a college group on the basis of race or culture (religious focus still being an exception), making it technically possible for any organization to claim they are multicultural. Although in practice, WASPy groups still exists and tokenism does not equate to true multiculturalism. However, I am not sure identifying a group as multicultural in this context has much significance as it generally does not relate to the programmatic side of the organization in the same way it would for groups with a Latino focus, for example. I understand that some fraternities still use this terminology either for historic reasons or as a marketing tool, but that does not necessarily make it worthy of mention in a brief overview. Especially if the fraternity claims to be Christian, Social and Multicultural--where the first term cancels out the last in part. It makes more sense if a group is Asian and Multicultural as that says they are not exclusively Asian to potential members, but that is almost like a mostly white fraternity claiming to be Social and Multicultural. But, these are just my opinions. In practice for Wikipedia, we describe a group using sources. So if Baird's or the Almanac says it is multicultural, I guess that is the terminology we should use. Rublamb (talk) 17:52, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * On your last paragraph, yes, this is why I noted that traditional groups talk about their being diverse or open to diversity, while the cultural fraternities lead with the fact of their multiculturalism. It's a nuance.  Alpha Tau Omega would begin their introduction by talking about their focus on collegiate men, training for leadership, and perhaps networking.  Later, they'd mention diversity.  Whereas Psi Sigma Phi opens the introduction with "unconditional respect and equality" of cultural identity.  Thus it is a matter of primary emphasis. I'd use "Multicultural" if that is what a particular group centers on as their raison d'etre. Let them define themselves. Jax MN (talk) 18:59, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Zebulon Baird Vance
The article Zebulon Baird Vance you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Zebulon Baird Vance for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Indy beetle -- Indy beetle (talk) 06:20, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Zebulon Baird Vance
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Zebulon Baird Vance you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Indy beetle -- Indy beetle (talk) 03:00, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

January 2023
Hello, I'm DarkAudit. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions&#32;to African-American officeholders during and following the Reconstruction era have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. DarkAudit (talk) 09:54, 20 January 2023 (UTC)


 * No idea what you are talking about. I have been working on this article for some time now and my most recent edit was adding names, missing sources, and adding missing dates. I was not experimenting but am an experienced, legitimate editor. Rublamb (talk) 09:57, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Might want to check out what that sliver of "nash" was doing at the top of the article. That's what made me hit the button. DarkAudit (talk) 10:03, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I actually had fixed that in my following copy edit, but that was lost when you reversed my edits again. Will you please restore my edits--it was several hours of work, including time offline organizing a list of names that was not alphabetical. Thanks Rublamb (talk) 10:08, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Done. How's that? DarkAudit (talk) 10:12, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Rublamb (talk) 10:14, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors 2022 Annual Report
Sent by Baffle gab1978 using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Mike Edwards (American journalist)
The article Mike Edwards (American journalist) you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Mike Edwards (American journalist) for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of David Fuchs -- David Fuchs (talk) 17:21, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Mike Edwards (American journalist)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Mike Edwards (American journalist) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of David Fuchs -- David Fuchs (talk) 20:21, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 12
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Abner Edwin Patton, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cumberland College.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Professional Fraternities
You added Phi Delta and then dropped it when you greeked DOA, was that intentional?Naraht (talk) 15:29, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Phi Delta (Medical)
Should Phi Delta (Medical) be moved to Phi Delta (medical)? Leschnei (talk) 11:29, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. I reviewed the Fraternity and Sorority Project watchlist, and realized that in all other cases, the modifier "medical" is set in lower case, both for existing Wikipedia articles and proposed (redlinked) article names. Jax MN (talk) 14:45, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Or should this be Phi Delta Medical Fraternity, the formal name. There is a sorority called Phi Delta too. Rublamb (talk) 14:53, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * and I prefer to take the modifiers out of the article names and infoboxes, and similarly omit "Incorporated" where it pops up in the article name. However, these clarifications are certainly proper in the lede paragraph.
 * When I worked through the watchlist, adding actual and potential (~redlinked) GLO articles, I adopted naming syntax that had been most commonly used up until that point. Then I moved several articles with non-standard names to what emerged as the standard naming syntax. Thus the oldest national societies, dormant or active, had first rights to use a Greek letter name. Chi Tau, for example. Standardized modifiers were adopted for clarity, such as (fraternity), (sorority), (professional), (honor), (University of Vermont), etc. All were rendered in lower case except for the variation on Delta Psi for the non-affiliated Vermont group, which is correctly capitalized.
 * BTW, after a long search I found a Phi Delta (medical) crest, and have uploaded it. Until a better engraving emerges, this should suffice. Jax MN (talk) 16:59, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Assuming you will sort out moving the draft for Phi Delta (medical) with Phi Delta (Medical)? Jax MN (talk)
 * This of course leads to the question of whether a group should be forced to a dab term by a group that is in Defunct North American collegiate sororities, but that's a different question.Naraht (talk) 17:52, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I thought of that too, especially since the medical fraternity is the older of the two. But you and @Jax MN can make the call on that since you both worked on the defunct article. I turned the redirect for Phi Delta to the Defunct artice to make a generic redirect page, so going with just Phi Delta would be challenging (at least with my limited skill set). Rublamb (talk) 17:57, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

17:03, 6 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I am moving this conversation to Talk:Phi Delta (medical) Please continue this conversation there. Rublamb (talk) 18:04, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Prior discussion
See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Fraternities_and_Sororities/Archive_6 for a large proposal that I did back in 2015 that included dab terms, not getting pushback, I have over the years generally moved articles toward. Under *that*, it should be Phi Delta (medical). This follows general Dab term rules in which a dab term should be capitalized *only* if a proper noun. (for which Delta Psi (University of Vermont) is a valid use).Naraht (talk) 17:52, 6 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Good to know. Rublamb (talk) 17:57, 6 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I am moving this conversation to Talk:Phi Delta (medical). Please continue this conversation there. Rublamb (talk) 18:04, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Order of collegiate secret societies table
With regard to the 21:56, 6 February 2023 edit of Collegiate secret societies in North America, re-ordering the second table by the name of the society rather than by the name of the school, was there any sort of discussion prior to making this change? Fabrickator (talk) 00:31, 7 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Ordering society/fraternity lists by society/fraternity name is the norm for lists of this nature as established by the WP Fraternity/Sorority. Members of the WP have an ongoing project to make the tables as similar as possible between articles; there is also a preferred sequence for the columns. In this instance, sorting by organizational name was also beneficial because several of the society's names start with "the" which would impact automated sorting through the table. However, users can still sort by institution name because this is a sortable table. Copying @Jax_MN. Rublamb (talk) 00:42, 7 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I think it is an improvement, as Rublamb suggested. We order by date as a convention on thousands of such list pages. I further think that a column or some designation (bold vs. italics?) noting whether the society remains active or inactive would be useful, as would a column for the number of chapters. Sorry that this came as something of a surprise, Fabrickator. I know you are a regular editor to these pages. Jax MN (talk) 00:57, 7 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Secret societies are for the most part specific to a particular school (Is there actually any connection between the two identified as Dragon Society or the three variants of Sigma Phi?) so sorting by the name of the society isn't particularly meaningful. I would have advocated to sort by school, and then within the same school, sort them chronologically, which emphasizes how things progressed over time at that school (and the individual school writeups largely follow this).  But my other point is that something which might seem to have an obvious preferred approach should still be subject for discussion before actually making the change.  Admittedly, nothing here has been done which couldn't be undone, but the fact that something has been done a particular way tends to take precedence even if it's not necessarily the best way. Fabrickator (talk) 15:05, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @Fabrickator, As @Jax MN said, I am also sorry if this change caught you off guard. I appreciate the time and effort that you put into this article and understand your desire to protect your work and the work of others. I did not bring this specific article up for discussion before making changes because this style had already been discussion and adopted by the WP that has oversight of articles such as this. I apologize if you feel slighted by what Wikipedians would call my "bold" approach to editing. I did not mean to offend anyone, but rather have a strong desire to improve access to information (I'm a librarian--it is what I do). The WP has established standards for lists and tables, including alphabetical by organization for lists of groups. Some people think these lists should be in Greek letter order. Others like date order. You and others like institutional order. Not to get into the nitty gritty, of decision making, but not all fraternities/societies are started at an institution/university. Sometimes that column is blank or lists a city (location instead of school). Many times the founding date is unknown, so that also is less reliable as a sorting column. However, organizations always have a name and, therefore, the decision was made that this is the best choice for sorting. Again, the WP made this decision for consistency across all articles, not just for this one article. Furthermore when searching for information, people expect a list of organizations to be in alphabetical order by organizational name. We are taught this approach at an early age.
 * Your idea of showing the history and evolution of secret societies at a specific institution is valid and a thoughtful approach to this specific content. This information is or can be provided in article's corresponding text which is in alphabetical order by school. Thus, we are giving people two ways to access information within the article—by institution order in the text or alphabetically in the table. My point being, alphabetizing the table by society name did not limit access, but improved what had previously been a duplication of presentation. In addition, more in depth information can also be added to the various stand-alone articles. For example, I also worked on the Secret societies at the University of Virginia at the same time, adding text and sources for groups, placing the society subsections in chronological order, and ordering the table by group name. In that way, these two article mirror each other in structure and are, therefore, easier for users to navigate. Other general overview articles relating to fraternities, sororities, and societies are receiving the same formatting, providing a unified for work completed by a wide variety of editors. Similarly, articles about specific organizations also have a template that we try to follow.
 * I agree that most secret societies are singular but there are exceptions within the current list. When making updates, I considered whether all locations needed to be added (for example, St. Anthony Hall was in the master list for Columbia but was also in the Yale list and has other chapters), but decided that it made more sense to change the column name to Founding Institution. That way, we don't have to look up each organization to see if it is local regional/national with other locations.
 * Sorry to be so wordy but I am hoping this helps you understand the "why" a little bit better. Rublamb (talk) 19:57, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

List of Jewish fraternities and sororities
Hi Rublamb. What was the rationale for removing Delta Phi Epsilon, Phi Sigma Sigma and Tau Epsilon Phi from the list? We had previously looked at those, deciding at the time to keep them on this page. While they did shift to a non-sectarian model early in their development, they were on solid footing as originating as Jewish sororities at their origin; their inclusion in the Sauna reference (p.312, p.315) makes this clear. At the time, this page cast a wide net, and language here clarified that some organizations maintained a strong Jewish identity, some took a middle ground of continued acknowledgement of a proud Jewish heritage, and the other end of the spectrum was Delta Phi Epsilon and Phi Sigma Sigma, where their Jewish ties were "merely" historical with ongoing branding centered on the non-sectarian message. But historically Jewish, they were. I recall that at the time I worked on this page we wanted to ensure inclusion on that basis. A staffer from one of those two sororities suggested the ^ footnote to qualify that they had, for a long time, been non-sectarian. I thought that a good compromise.

I like the new information added. Would suggest that you keep a column to indicate if a society had been a member of the NIC or NPC. I am now reviewing the Sauna reference to see if I can figure out a couple of the missing dates, or formation schools. Jax MN (talk) 16:45, 30 December 2022 (UTC)


 * You know I like these tables. The only downside to the table format here is that, to me, its visual emphasis is on closures because the active, surviving groups don't pop out as much. In the previous typographical format (with active groups above, in bold, and merged or dormant groups below, indented, in italic) helps the eye focus on survivorship and the fact of mergers being a common fact.  But the table has allowed you to convey more information.  I see both sides of this issue.  Here, I think I prefer the table, while on the campus lists I would go the other way.  Jax MN (talk) 16:54, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Well you're the one who got me started on tables... I think bolding the current chapters makes them stand out well enough. This article did not include affiliation info--I believe I added a few to notes, but figured I would come back to it later when I had time to check them all.
 * TEP must have happened by accident when I was creating the table. That would be a major oversight. I will add it back; good catch.
 * The other two are worth discussing, maybe on the article page (we can move this over if need be)? It did not seem like Phi Sigma Sigma was ever resolved in the discussion. Since it was not established as a Jewish sorority and determining whether or not its founders were Jewish slides toward original research, I made the decision to cut it. Also, if we are going by the rule of "what do they call themselves," Phi Sigma Sigma never called itself a Jewish sorority. Inclusion in the directory is persuasive, I agree, but I am not sure it overrides the group's own history which says it was founded as the first nonsectarian collegiate sorority.
 * Delta Phi Epsilon was similar, claiming to have been founded as a nonsectarian group. Given your question, I hunted some more. I have found an article in The Jewish times from 2022 that says "the international sorority continues to celebrate its founding as a nonsectarian organization, albeit by five Jewish women." So, with its listing in the directory and this article, it could be included with a efn explaining that it is never a Jewish org but included on the list because its founding members were Jewish. I would be okay with that, but it does feel a bit racist to add a label based not on what the group called itself, but on the cultural identity of its original members. Rublamb (talk) 02:54, 31 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm mulling over where one ought to draw the line as to inclusion on this page. As we do not have a category page for "Nonsectarian" fraternities and sororities, reducto ad absurdum I suppose, it seemed to me sort of a badge of honor (for these groups) that we include Phi Sigma Sigma and Delta Phi Epsilon and note them as being born as Jewish sororities, even though they quickly moved to a non-sectarian model.  In other words, they were birthed out of a Jewish-led milieu, advancing further and quickly toward a non-sectarian model that would lead the way for others. TDPhi, similarly, was an early adopter of the inter-faith model on the men's side (1945).  An important point here, was that the Jewish fraternities and sororities adopted housing and programmatic structures similar to the traditional fraternities and sororities of the time, while the Black and Hispanic groups persisted, for various financial and cultural reasons, to operate in almost all cases as non-residential clubs.  These, too, later opened to non-Blacks and non-Hispanics, but probably influenced by the Jewish organizations well-prior to any legislation forcing those moves.  It was the Jewish organizations that led the way toward interfaith, and then inter-racial acceptance. It seems a shame to omit PSS and DPE on this basis. (talk) 17:28, 31 December 2022 (UTC)


 * As far as I can tell, these two were originally formed as nonsectarian--there was no moving over. I am fine adding them back with notes as mentioned about if that is what the gang wants to do. It really does come down to whether it is an honor for the founders to be recognized for their religion/culture. @Naraht, what do you think.Rublamb (talk) 17:45, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Founders
Good afternoon. I noticed your recent edit to Sigma Alpha Omega, and deletion of the founders of the group. This came up briefly some time time ago, but I wanted to address it so we have a consensus. I personally don't mind bulleting the founders, as I do not see such a minor mention as promotional. These personal may, later, earn a wikilink of their own. Creating a fraternity is a lot of work, it doesn't hurt to list them from a historical perspective or as a tip of the hat. I prefer to use two or even three columns when the list is longer. And I also think that bullet lists like this help draw the eye through an article, versus a wall of text. Is there some rule I don't know about that guided your deletion? Jax MN (talk) 19:13, 30 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I did not delete the founders and there was no bulleted list in this article. I merged a section that consisted on one sentence into the history section. My rational was that if there was not enough content for an actual paragraph, then there was not enough content for stand-alone section. And it made sense for the list of founders to be included in a paragraph about the founders.
 * With regards to bulleted lists, I try to follow MOS which strongly prefers sentences/prose to bulleted lists, unless the string of names, etc. is quite long and difficult to read as prose. Translating MOS for our purposes in WP Fraternity, whether or not founders are included in prose or as a bulleted list should be determined by the ease in reading and a need for clarity. Rublamb (talk) 20:10, 30 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Ugh, forgive me, you are right. I was scanning the page quickly.  I still prefer to bullet list the founders, for consistency across all GLOs. What do you think, ought this be one of the points on which our project differs from the generic MOS?  A thousand or so articles use bullets to denote the founders.  In context, when I frame up a history section, the optimal style I follow is a short paragraph on founding notes, a list of founders, then separate paragraphs of historical junctures and a few examples of symbolism.  I like to also include key milestones, like first international chapter, first admission of women (or men), purchase of a headquarters, establishment of a foundation, that sort of thing.  Jax MN (talk) 20:49, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I feel pretty strongly that we should follow MOS and maintain an encyclopedic style. Following MOS not only makes it easier for random editors to work on WP Fraternity/Sorority articles and match the format, but also creates articles that are more likely to pass GA status. GA review is on my mind since I just had a reviewer who was going to fail an architect's bio unless I merged the career and project sections--yet having those two sections was directly from the WP Architecture template. (I refused to make the change and we agreed to discontinue the GA review....). I am not suggesting a massive effort to fix existing articles as we have more important projects at hand. Rather we should follow MOS moving forward with new articles and make corrections when updating older articles. According to MOS, lists in this instance are for clarity, not esthetics. I don't have a fixed number but suggest that fewer than seven names should be prose, with seven or more names being a list as needed for clarity. That may well mean that most of the existing articles are fine as is, right? Also, if you think a founder meets notability for a WP article, they should be linked as such—but I am not advocating red linking every founder. For example, I red linked all Cosmos Club founders who lacked an article but not the members of a brand-new multicultural sorority. Rublamb (talk) 19:54, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * To your point on redlinks, I'd instead handle it as I did here: Nu Sigma Nu. One of the Mayo brothers was significant enough to have his own article, the others are in plain text, bulleted.  Should someone later be judged as notable, and have an article written about them, they can easily find the name among a list of founders and create a Wikilink then.

Lots of updates
I'm looking through last night's many updates, where you've added the link to the list of Professional fraternities and sororities. It's very helpful. While you are doing this, are you checking each of these for addition to our working list of substandard chapter lists, adding them if needed?

Typical of Wikipedia, each time we do these mass sets of updates, it opens up a number of rabbit holes to crawl down. My, my. Jax MN (talk) 17:10, 1 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Noting the deletion of many of the "See also" sections I had added, as you and Naraht preferred to use a template or link to the professional group list, I'm OK with that. HOWEVER, what has been lost is the short list of honor societies that support those specific categories (medicine, law, etc.) - I think that is a diminishment, and would be valuable links to casual readers.  Jax MN (talk) 17:18, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I added a ton to the substandard list. I fixed many along the way but found more than I could manage. I think I added more than I have fixed over the entire process. And these are going to be harder because they will not be in the Almanac. Rabbit hole indeed. Blame Naraht for asking a question, you for brining up the professional group, and me for following a link in the professional article. Yikes!
 * Many of the honor groups you had previously listed are on the professional page. I did not attempt to detangle that as some have a dual role or have changed their mission over time. Also, several of the honor societies are now members of the Professional Fraternities group which was previously the determination between the two. It will take more consideration and comparison to the honor society article to detangle. As a result, when I deleted an honor society from one of your lists, it is most likely because it was included in the professional article. There are cases where I only deleted professional and left the honor. It was a case by case situation. Not perfect and for that I apologize. Rublamb (talk) 19:32, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I thought of another solution. We can list both Honor society and Professional fraternities and sororities under See Also. This should cover all that you wanted to link--and will allow us to update the two lists without worrying about changes impacting a large number of pages. Rublamb (talk) 19:45, 3 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I am mindful of the casual readers. In the case of the pharmaceutical fraternities, by adding the link to the list of professional fraternities we call attention to similar groups.  That's great, and could lead to chapters of struggling groups seeking an alternative affiliation.  But you've obviously noted that I also had linked to the honor society dedicated to pharmacy.  They seem quite stable, and honor societies like this tend to have a single big organization for that specific discipline.  I suppose readers can find them by looking through the list of all honor societies, but this saves a step.  I mulled this over as I did it.  Yes, I'd also suggest a link to the category of honor societies, too.  That way, if there is a local, or two-year school honor society, these would become visible.  Can we compromise by including the link to Rho Chi, and then the category pages? Jax MN (talk) 20:25, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * At this point, Rho Chi is on the professional list. I did not remove questionable content yet because I think we need to revisit the division between professional and honor society first. I am finding that some of the criteria--GPA requirement, open or exclusive membership, what the group calls itself, group activity post graduation, and affiliation--are not as clear-cut as one might suppose. There is at least one that has changed its mission and, therefore, belongs on both lists. Also, what were traditionally honor societies have now joined the PFA. If open membership and no GPA requirement are the main qualifiers, most of the groups currently on the professional list would fall on the honor society side. We may have to determine if GPA requirements are college requirements (to participate in a GLO) or not. Rublamb (talk) 18:50, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Since Rho Chi is a member of the ACHS, and doesn't claim to be a 'professional' fraternity, I do not support inclusion on the Professional fraternity page.
 * Baird's editors routinely dealt with this distinction. They required organizations to pick one of the broad categories or another:  Social, Honor, Professional, Recognition, etc.  More recently, we lumped Recognition in with Honor, but perhaps that should again become two separate types. More recent groups again want to ride the fence, calling themselves both honor and professional (and service and social and Christian) organizations.  We should resist the impulse to allow multiple categories here, as eventually every group will call themselves social, honor and professional.  The outcome would be clear as mud.
 * Honor societies tend to have the most impact as something a graduate earns, and normally have less activity than a professional fraternity. Some professional fraternities have a housing option, most do not, but they focus more on networking and can be very active during the undergrad years.  While they will have a GPA requirement, it's not as strictly monitored, from what I can tell. I could easily be convinced to split out honor societies (strict GPA and rank rules, selected later in the collegiate career) versus Recognition (undergrad activity with GPA requirements, and more tending toward self-selection).  Jax MN (talk) 19:15, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * When working on the Epsilon Eta article, I found a good example. It was founded as Epsilon Eta Environmental Honors Fraternity, but is called a service or professional fraternity by some chapters. It has a requirement of a 3.0 GPA, but also allows people to apply for membership. However, at UNC it looks like only 40% were admitted, so not wide open. It does have a service and meeting requirement for active members. All in all, feels very much like a professional group even though it was founded as a honor fraternity and has a GPA requirement. Could the requirement to attend meetings and perform service be the determination for honors vs. professional? Certainly, my membership in Phi Kappa Phi or Beta Club never had any obligations once a fee was paid. Rublamb (talk) 19:49, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I think you landed on a great example of scope creep. What Baird's did, over so many decades, was to force groups to decide how they wanted to be framed. It allowed the definitions to stay fairly consistent.  A professional fraternity like Epsilon Eta may certainly have aspects of being honorable, either in actions* or design, but as they gather students of like mind they are clearly professional in nature, i.e.: developing students toward a defined professional path. Sure, they may do service.  And have a GPA requirement.  But they do not act like the many ACHS groups nor significant local honoraries, whose imprimatur is typically gained in the senior year or at graduation, in a tapping.  Honor societies are more passive in undergrad member activities.
 * I think, too, that the most venerable of the honor societies like Phi Kappa Phi, Phi Beta Kappa and Sigma Xi wanted to set themselves apart from even the good single-discipline honoraries, which is why they abandoned the ACHS. A third class of honoraries are the for-profit groups, and lesser societies, often profit-making societies that prey on high school kids.  We haven't posted anything declarative about these, but I think it might be of interest for the Honor society article.  References abound.
 * (*Some may strain their eyes while rolling them, when they consider the purported insults which some of Alpha chapter's members say they endured while self-destructive accusations were hurled against one another, leading to their chapter's demise. How long might a case of the vapors last? A disinterested observer might surmise there was not much to honor, there. I'm not judging, to be clear.)  Jax MN (talk) 21:44, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Kappa Sig
Good luck on this one. It's a biggun'. Note that Baird's lists Beta third, as Beta, and dates it as being installed in 1899. Jax MN (talk) 18:35, 15 March 2023 (UTC)


 * After a sorority of more than 1600 chapters, something under 500 is a breeze... I have already fixed the dates which were in every format possible. Rublamb (talk) 18:38, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on Rainbow Fraternity
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Rainbow Fraternity, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:Qwerfjkl/Botpreload&editintro=User:Qwerfjkl/boteditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:Qwerfjkl&preloadtitle=Qwerfjkl%20(bot)%20–%20Qwerfjkl_(bot)&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 05:25, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * A "missing periodical" error. References show this error when the name of the magazine or journal is not given. Please edit the article to add the name of the magazine/journal to the reference, or use a different citation template. ([//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rainbow_Fraternity&action=edit&minor=minor&summary=Fixing+reference+error+raised+by+%5B%5BUser%3AQwerfjkl%20(bot)%7CQwerfjkl%20(bot)%5D%5D Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:Qwerfjkl%20(bot)/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F1152764715%7CRainbow%20Fraternity%5D%5D Ask for help])

Reference question
An editor just updated several of the references on the Baird's article, from bare refs to standard format tags. But as they hadn't included the names of several of the editors of mid-Century versions, I added these. Would you tell me, in book series like this, where there are multiple editors over time and for each volume, should I place William Baird's name in the position of first editor even after he had died? Or is it proper to place his name in the second position? Jax MN (talk) 17:00, 31 December 2022 (UTC)


 * You are supposed to go by the title page of each volume, following the order it lists the authors or editors. Sometimes in a series like this, the publishers began dropping the original editor from the list of editors/authors and add the originators name to the title of the series. Technically, this is supposed to be treated as a series name change with only the listed editors included. However with long standing series like Baird's, the Library of Congress tended to continue to list the original editor in the first position in their cataloging. So I would use title page order--if Baird is missing, I would put list him first. Rublamb (talk) 17:17, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

List of Alpha Kappa Alpha chapters
Looks like there are two copies of the Graduate chapters table. Could you please review, I didn't want to do a major deletion myself. Two different headers and one table that is just to Alpha Omega Omega (in 1933)Naraht (talk) 13:46, 8 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I almost think this was a glitch. I mainly work in visual editor, and originally saw what you described. When I went to fix it, I could only see a duplicate header with intro there. I tried to delete it but the header returned after I saved the edit. (I reversed this edit). I could see it in source editing but noticed that identical citations had different numbers. Any way, I was able to remove it in source editing--hopefully that works. Rublamb (talk) 15:05, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for the collisions
I'll avoid making changes on your sandbox. I may let you know here if something is looking particularly odd or if I find a chartering date or something.Naraht (talk) 15:29, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

List of Alpha Phi Alpha chapters.
In *general*, in cases like this, do a move from your sandbox to the page on mainspace without leaving a redirect. It makes sure that any changes done by others are credited in the correct place. Not worth going back and trying to undo it, but for future reference. Thank you for creating a *great* article.Naraht (talk) 14:00, 18 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Because I use my sandbox exclusively for solo efforts and not for collaborative projects, I see no problem is publishing to the main space without a redirect to my sandbox. I agree that collaborative projects should be published differently and will keep that in mind for future projects. Generally, my preference is to work on a draft by myself to avoid edit conflicts, publishing when I am ready to let others jump in with corrections and additions. If you want to work collaboratively, please let me know so the article can be moved from my solo sandbox. I know many work on several drafts at the same time but, to date, that has not been my practice. However, I am willing to create a stub or short draft that can be moved to a collaborative work space for others to complete, if that would be helpful. Thanks. Rublamb (talk) 19:34, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors June 2023 Newsletter
Sent by Baffle gab1978 using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:39, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

List of Alpha Kappa Alpha chapters.
Looks like part of the graduate chapter list is duplicated, but I'm not sure. Look for Alpha Phi Omega, it occurs twice (not counting the Alpha Alpha Phi Omega). I think those are duplicates.Naraht (talk) 21:38, 18 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Not sure what to do here. This is the same issue that I thought I had previously fixed. Apparently my previous effort to remove the duplicate section caused reference errors. Do you have any suggestions? Rublamb (talk) 22:09, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I removed it again, this time making sure to transfer over the one reference. If it appears again, we will have to submit for tech support. Rublamb (talk) 01:33, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Technical, use of hyphens
Hello. Several years ago, another editor advised I should not use the standard hyphen (minus sign) between years, nor use spacing, as would be my normal typing habit, when splitting two years in a table or in body text. They alerted me to an EMDASH, which is an un-spaced dash, to use between years. The alternative, an EN DASH is spaced. (not the best abbreviations)

The vast majority of list pages and GLO articles which we've worked on have the un-spaced dash. This: "–". It's so commonly used that I had created a quick reference item for myself on my user talk page, to allow me to cut and paste. I didn't bother to look up the ASCI code to determine if one or the other had other rules, like if it was non-breaking, as I'd simply taken that editor's word for it and have routinely used this syntax: " 1899–1911 " versus this: " 1924-10-10 – 2019 "

I don't have a dog in the fight, but want to be consistent. There are hundreds of thousands of incidents that use the characters as I have noted here, So your recent adoption of the spaced dash on the List of Theta Phi Alpha chapters was contrary to much of our earlier work. I can certainly change my standard syntax, if you've found a definitive rule here. A bot could probably make this a while lot easier with a global fix.

The article section in the MOS has a lot of content on this: WP:EMDASH Jax MN (talk) 22:59, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * , do you want to weigh in on this? Jax MN (talk) 23:08, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I see you've adopted a semi-colon between sets of active date ranges. (Example: " 1924-10-10 – 1989; 1995 – 2019 ) Many pages use commas, but your usage here is arguably the correct one.  As a related topic, we might as well determine a consistent approach here, too.  Jax MN (talk) 23:13, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Jax MN The issue is not the dash which I believe we are pretty consistent with using, but MOS:DATERANGE Recently, when I was following Naraht in editing, I noted the spacing as in October 10, 1934 – November 12, 1999. I too had been using the "no space hyphen" in these instances, but then had another editor correct a date in an non-WP article to the spaced format. I checked MOS and found that the spacing around the hyphen is correct for the full date. No space around the hyphen is correct for "year–year". I had not noticed until tonight that MOS:DATERANGE also discusses the use of "–present" which was recently brought up in another discussion.
 * My preference would be to standardize this whether or not the instance is for just a year, or if it is a specific date. I also prefer not to add spaces around the dash either way, so that there is no confusion that the range is a set.  While I understand the general rule of grammar I think such usage here would be more clear. Jax MN (talk) 18:05, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It is one of those instances where Wikipedia spells out the correct usage in a very specific way, but does not consider what that would like like in a list of mixed-format dates. (Maybe this needs to be brought up for discussion with the policy guys? Or even just asking an admin from outside our project to take a look?) I don't totally hate it—after all it looks like the birth to death ranges in biographical articles. However, I am not yet used to how it looks, and I feel guilty about all those times I have removed the spaces that other inserted. For sure, I am not suggesting a re-do of past efforts as 1) I don't think it is worth the effort and 2) it really isn't that big of a deal. However, I am going to try to follow the MOS moving forward for consistency in my editing across WP. Rublamb (talk) 18:41, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I am using a semicolon to separate a series of dates that include commas, but not with a series of just years (no commas). That is basic punctuation and something we do automatically for a "city, state" list for example. However, this usage of the semicolon does fall under "use a semicolon when a comma alone might be confusing", meaning it is not required. It just depends on the editor's determination of confusing. Rublamb (talk) 01:10, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I like your adoption of semi-colons instead of commas here. (And FWIW, as a separate matter, I prefer Oxford commas. So much better than the alternative.) Jax MN (talk) 18:05, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * LOL Oxford commas. I was rigidly taught to use them in high school, had to drop them for PR work, and now delight that Grammarly suggests their addition. Rublamb (talk) 18:43, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Looks like I got in here late. My feeling on this is that I'll drop in as much as I can from a source and let those who care fix it. :) Having said that, I think having something common between two uses of the dts template *regardless* of whether they are just year or mdy is probably preferred. (simply because we also have *quite* a few that look like 1909-12-3-{{dts|1962} This would also be *very* easy to make a large swath of changes using Autowikibrowser, which I'm fairly good at. Grabbing all pages in Category:Lists of chapters of United States student societies by society and changing }}- – {{dts would take a couple of hours at most, and I'd be *quite* fine doing it.Naraht (talk) 13:05, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Naraht I feel you and agree that accurate content is more important than punctuation. And, wow, you are so knowledgeable when it comes to the workings of Wikipedia. I had to give this one a think (could I really ask you to spend time on this?) and then realized the answer was YES! Of course we should try to fix our content to match MOS. While I would be reluctant to endorse a manual overhaul all WP Fraternity/Sorority articles, you have provided us with a great option. Thank you so much for offering. Rublamb (talk) 20:04, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * There is an additional benefit for one so skilled with using bots. Naraht can signal this project to run in the background and, voila!, he's got 50,000 additional edits for his count.  --At least that is how I think it works.  Jax MN (talk) 21:30, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

Omega Phi Alpha National Service Sorority
Binghamton university became Alpha Phi Chapter on April 29 72.185.167.179 (talk) 18:57, 20 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I found and source, so was able to update. Rublamb (talk) 08:01, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

DC in the column...
You are fairly consistent in *not* putting "DC" into the State column in tables, which I completely disagree with (and have edited mainspace articles to change it. Do you have any suggestions on a good place to get a complete answer on this?Naraht (talk) 17:17, 14 April 2023 (UTC)


 * The District of Columbia is not a state which is why I do not put it in the column for states. Although D.C. is a federal district, it is also a part of the city's name: Washington, District of Columbia.  Think of it as East St. Louis--St. Louis is not the name of a state just because it has a prefix nor is East the name of a city. Or maybe an even better example, splitting off D.C. and putting it into the state column would be like putting "New" in the city column and "York" in the state column.
 * It could be correct to put Washington, D.C. in the city column and District of Columbia in the state column if the header was changed to State/District/Province of something like that. However, I do not really see the point as we typically do not include districts when listing cities in foreign countries. Rublamb (talk) 17:41, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

July 2023 GOCE drive award
~ Argenti Aertheri (Chat?) 00:54, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Review completed, found a couple issues but they shouldn't be too hard to fix. Once they're fixed it'll be an easy pass! ~ Argenti Aertheri (Chat?) 04:10, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

July 2023 GOCE drive award
~ Argenti Aertheri (Chat?) 00:54, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Review completed, found a couple issues but they shouldn't be too hard to fix. Once they're fixed it'll be an easy pass! ~ Argenti Aertheri (Chat?) 04:10, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I belived I have addressed all of your concerns. Thanks for the thoughtful review. You caught a few things I had missed when editing other's work. Rublamb (talk) 23:06, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

July 2023 GOCE drive award
~ Argenti Aertheri (Chat?) 00:54, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Review completed, found a couple issues but they shouldn't be too hard to fix. Once they're fixed it'll be an easy pass! ~ Argenti Aertheri (Chat?) 04:10, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I belived I have addressed all of your concerns. Thanks for the thoughtful review. You caught a few things I had missed when editing other's work. Rublamb (talk) 23:06, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Henry M. Crane
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Henry M. Crane you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of M4V3R1CK32 -- M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 16:22, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Henry M. Crane
The article Henry M. Crane you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Henry M. Crane and Talk:Henry M. Crane/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of M4V3R1CK32 -- M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 03:23, 18 August 2023 (UTC)


 * @M4V3R1CK32, I believe I have completed your suggestions, as well as other small cleanups. I really appreciated your thoughtful review. It was some time since I created the article and you caught many things that I missed back when I was a new editor. Rublamb (talk) 18:29, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

August 2023
Hi Rublamb! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Indiana University Bloomington several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree&#32;at, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. ''The content you are adding to the short description is excessive and unnecessary as it is only visible by users when they are doing searches. It is also only useful for disambiguation - which isn't necessary at that level. Please refrain from further introducing unnecessary content into the short descriptions as they are intended to be kept as concise as possible.''. Picard&#39;s Facepalm (talk) 13:39, 23 August 2023 (UTC)


 * @Picard's Facepalm: Thanks for calling this to my attention. I had no idea that I had edited the short description for this article more than once or that anyone had reverted my change. In the past two weeks, I have worked on projects for Wp Fraternities that collectively involve hundreds of colleges. Along the way, as I come across the college articles, I am adding missing or enhancing short descriptions, sometimes copy editing text, and cleaning up up talk pages (proud Wiki Fairy here). Most college short descriptions include a location. This is very helpful because it allows one to copy and paste the location for the WP Fraternity's ongling project, without having to open the college article to varying its location. (The WP's guideline for chapter lists includes a location for each college). I am not using the short descriptions via search, but by hovering over the wikilink within article text. This is another way these short description are used and is important to consider. So no edit war here--just something I obviously came across more than once and tried to fix. If I had objected to your reversal, I would have used "undo" with an explaination. Rublamb (talk) 17:01, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Mara Rockliff
Hi! I wanted to ask if you'd be open to a reorganization of this article. Because your original is so comprehensive, it's hard to distinguish the more notable works, awards, commentary, etc. from the less notable. I talked with an experienced Wikipedia editor who suggested separating out much of your material into pages for the individual works, which I would be happy to do. For the author page, I'd like to propose this revised version: User:Mitulino/sandbox.

Mitulino (talk) 17:34, 22 August 2023 (UTC)


 * @Mitulino and @Rachel Helps (BYU): Thanks for asking. I have no problem with a reorganization or additions to this article. However, your proposed draft is not a reorganization but a deep cut, taking the article's prose from 1195 words to 616 words, not including your proposed cuts to the lists of publications. I'm not sure why you would want to make cuts that would take a B class article back to a C or start class. Instead, your edits to this article should be toward GA status, something I am currently working on for all of my B class articles.
 * The other editor's suggestion for stand alone articles about specific books is common in Wikipedia. For example, if you look at Jane Austin, you will find a comprehensive overview of her work, with links to articles about specific volumes. Comprehensive being the ultimate goal of the best Wikipedia articles. At this time, the Rockliff article lacks the content needed to be split into a book article. That would be something you would need to start from scratch. However, it can be challenging to find secondary sources to create a good stand-alone article about a book. Even aritcles I have reviewed for books by Judy Blume suffer from a lack of sources.
 * So, I support you desire to change the current article to call attention to specific books rather than going for new articles. My approach would be one of two strategies. Firstly, you could add a new section on Notable Works (or similar title) where you could go into more detail about the plots of the selected books. Another approach would be to divide the existing text into subsections such as Book A, Book B, As Pen Name X, Series, Other Publications, etc., adding content as appropriate. I have used both techniques successfully in many articles, especially with architects who have body of work as well as high profile projects. The biggest challenge with subsections is finding balance between topical entries on specific books and a chronological overview of an author's works. Honestly, this article would benefit from subsections; this is probably something I would do in preperation for a GA review. Certainly a new section would be the appropriate way to add your content on censorship. And, as the former chair of the Virginia Library Association's intellectual freemdom committee, I do support the inclusion of that information.
 * I have no problem with your sugestion of an awards table, although prose would be the preferred improvement per MOS. In terms of minor awards vs. major awards, there are several ways these are distinguished in Wikipedia. Mid-level awards tend to lack links to articles in Wikipedia, while major awards will always have links to articles about the award and/or the presenting organization. Secondly, major awards are, as in this case, noted in the intro to the article. I don't agree with cutting a mid-level awards (if sourced) to make "major" awards stand out more—as this is unnecessary for the reasons stated. Rublamb (talk) 18:55, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. I'm not sure if an author's Wikipedia page is the right place to put detailed information about reviews of some or all of their works. This is a difficult problem; often with authors who have only written one or two books, those reviews are what help with notability. But when they are not necessary for notability, it is possible to be overly detailed about individual books. I would caution you against overly identifying with the page as "yours" (although I sympathize with the feeling of being responsible for text you've written)--Wikipedia belongs to us all. Certainly, the "Career" section is too long and should be organized, maybe into separate sections for pseudonymous works or series. Barkeep49, you're very experienced with author and book pages--what is your opinion on information about lots of individual books in the body of an author's page? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 20:00, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * This conservation has been relocated to Talk:Mara Rockliff Rublamb (talk) 20:42, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 26
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Richard Sharp Smith, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Basilica of St. Lawrence.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Re: changes to Phi Sigma Kappa page
Hi Rublamb. Regarding the changes you recently made to the article, Phi Sigma Kappa, I generally appreciate the upkeep.

You removed instances of "Fraternity", capitalized, and replaced them with "fraternity", lower case. I think this is in error, as use of the capitalized form is akin to a "term of art" in legal writing, where the capital letter indicates that the object is a specific fraternity. That's why I used it here and on many, many other pages. Several of us had a lengthy discussion about this, probably now in the archives of the F&S Project or template pages, which ended with the 'capitalization side' winning the argument. I personally think it clearer to capitalize this word, in the same way I would capitalize "Company" when using it as a pronoun in place of the formal name of a previously-defined company, and "College" or "University" for the same reason.

I note too that you shifted all the photos to the right. That appears to follow MOS guidance, where we are advised to avoid narrow strips of text in between photos on both sides, but here, I thought it looked better in the previous formatting which led the eye through the page. MOS is a serious guide, but not always correct. Was there another reason you made this adjustment? Thanks for your work, as always. Jax MN (talk) 17:33, 16 August 2023 (UTC)


 * In the WP conversion about capitalization, it was agreed that fraternity was capitalized when used as part of the formal name such as XYZ Fraternity Inc. or Fraternity of XYZ, but it not capitalized when used otherwise, including as a noun or adjective. This is consistent with most real-world style manuals and MOS:INSTITUTIONS. Similarly, company, association, museum, society, college, university and other simarlar words are only supposed to be capitalized when used are part of a formal name. I realize that it is very common for these  institutions to have their own real-world style guide that requires capitalization; I myself have worked for museums and universities that always capitalized those words. However, institutional preferences do not make it worthy of usage in Wikipedia--I equate it to something like The Ohio State.
 * I did move the photos to the right per MOS. Photos go on the left only when needed to be adjacent to their related taxt. I agree that adjustments are needed if narrow strips of text are left. Rublamb (talk) 17:53, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Septermber GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:55, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Summary style
When you move material from one article into another one - like what you've done with some of the really long lists of alumni in college and university articles - please remember to create a summary of the material that you removed for the original article. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 02:46, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Mara Rockliff article discussion
Hi! I saw the discussion on my user page before it was archived. I definitely sympathize with the situation you find yourself in. I appreciate that you don't intend to be the hall monitor type, are acting in good faith and are keeping Wikipedia's goals in mind. I think that given that, we can all take our time and hopefully produce an article that both of us can feel good about! Thanks —  Jch  thys  16:28, 7 September 2023 (UTC)


 * @Jchthys, Thanks. I archived it because it creeped me out to be followed to your page. I just reorganized the article to focus on themes of her books, rather than the chronology of books. At your suggestion, I removed all of the reviewers' comments; it hurt to cut a NYT review, but the quote was totally about the book, not the author. I also trimmed many of the awards from the career section as they are listed elsewhere in the article. That makes the text shorter and easier to read. Don't know if that helps with editing moving forward, but at least I tried. And thanks for restoring the birth date. Rublamb (talk) 17:50, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

3O edit summaries
Just a reminder to please indicate how many requests are remaining in your edit summary when you remove an item from the list. Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 16:50, 21 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I just realized I had missed this and did so in my most recent edit. Rublamb (talk) 16:56, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Third Opinion
Hello Rublamb. I saw that you moved my request for third opinion here (on Relief of Douglas MacArthur). I take it that means you plan to review it? Airborne84 (talk) 23:57, 28 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Sorry, your request is still on the list. It will be removed from the list when someone decides to respond. What you are seeing on my page is a replica of the list of active TO requests, automatically generated by code. There are probably others that also use this code as it is supplied on the TO page. Rublamb (talk) 00:27, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Carl A. Schenck
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Carl A. Schenck you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Vortex3427 -- Vortex3427 (talk) 10:22, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Automatically archiving Talk pages
Thanks for manually archiving Talk page discussions for a lot of articles. If you're up to it, you could also consider adding one of the templates that will begin automatic archiving to those Talk pages to save someone else the trouble of having to continue manually archiving discussions. Help:Archiving a talk page has information about how to do this if you're not familiar with it; you can just copy-and-paste one of the examples in that help page and a bot will take care of the rest. ElKevbo (talk) 22:01, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Just another quick request to please consider doing this. If someone doesn't add the template that begins automatic archiving of these Talk pages, someone else will have to come back at a future time to manually archive posts again and again. ElKevbo (talk) 02:45, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for the suggestion. Auto archive is great for active Talk Pages. However, most of the university and college articles are really hit or miss when it comes to discussions. As a result, a comment made more than a year or even five years ago may still be relevant and require action. For example, a "to do" list that was posted as a topic rather than a To Do page, lists of notables or other content that has been temporarily removed pending research, links for related WP or for an alumni banner, items needed for GA, and requests for edits made by people associated with the institution. As a result, I am not confortable setting up auto archive for articles that I am not actively monitoring. Also in archiving seventeen years of comments, I note that most of articles have less than one discussion a year or five years, hardly making this an urgent need. But it you feel strongly about it, make it one of your projects. Just be aware that you will need to change the format of topics still in play so that they will not auto archive. Rublamb (talk) 17:30, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Third opinion
Hello Rublamb. You have correctly rebuked me for being offensive in my response at Talk:Heat pump, and making a personal attack. I can say nothing to defend my actions and I can’t offer any excuse. I am sincerely sorry for my unreasonable words. I’m not normally an unhelpful User and I obviously need to be extra careful when editing late at night.

Thank you for your excellent work at WP:Third opinion. It is often a thankless task and I hope you continue working on that site. Dolphin ( t ) 10:03, 5 October 2023 (UTC)


 * @Dolphin51, I appreciate your reply. Truly. Everyone gets caught up in the emotion of an issue at one point or another. It just means that you are an editor who truly cares about what you do. Rublamb (talk) 19:06, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Bold, revert, discuss
When another editor reverts one of your edits, it's not a good idea to begin an edit war by immediately reverting their edit back to your preferred version of the article. Instead, we prefer to practice the bold, revert, discuss cycle where a revert of one of your edits should instead be followed an open discussion in the article's Talk page. Please revert your most recent edit that violated this cycle and open a discussion in the article's Talk page. ElKevbo (talk) 13:30, 16 September 2023 (UTC)


 * There is no "violation" here. You made a good faith edit that was in error per Manual of Style/Lists. I explained why when I reverted your edit (which undid a significant time investment without discussion or review of MOS). If lists contain multiple data points, tables are the preferred style because of the option to sort by various data points. You may not work much with notable alumni lists or lists in general, but tables are the standard format for alumni lists for universities and GLOs. It may look odd when the list of alumni is modest such as this not, but it does not take long for a list to grow once started and formatted correctly. There really is nothing to discuss here, other than your preference based on what you think "looks" right vs. the standard practice for hundreds of articles. Rublamb (talk) 14:08, 16 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Where is this standard practice documented or described? What consensus established it? ElKevbo (talk) 14:22, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The guidelines are detailed in Manual of Style/Lists, although I agree the language could be more specific. Although each WikiProject sets its own style preferences at different times, templates for alumni tables have existed within the WP for many years; going back a decade or so I think. I recall first learning about the preference for alumni tables a couple of years ago from WP leaders who participated in cross-WP discussions. In the past, I was reluctant to use table templates because they were harder for new editors to deal with, but the arrival of the table insert feature in Visual Editor lets people either code or not, making tables really user-friendly. Probably the highest authority on the use of tables for alumni lists would be looking at examples of alumni list articles that have achieved FL status. WP Lists only assigns two classes--List or Featured Lists. Here is one FL example: List of United States Naval Academy alumni. More examples can be found at Featured lists under education-people. As featured articles in Wikipedia are designed to demonstrate best practices, all editors are encouraged to follow their example. Rublamb (talk) 14:54, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Please tell me what specific part of Manual of Style/Lists requires these tables or enourages editors to edit war with others to impose them. ElKevbo (talk) 16:35, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The only "edit war" here is you reversing hours of my work on multiple articles. These are articles that I created, making you a secondary editor who is supposed to follow the existing style template, if several options exist. I have already cited the appropriate MOS source twice—Manual of Style/Lists. The specific sentence is: "tables are better-suited to associating content than description lists, especially when there are multiple values for each item." In this case, there are multiple values in three columns (class, degree, and notability) for each person/alumni. MOS clearly says tables are the preferred format over lists in this instance. This is not about personal preference but about an established standard within the Wikipedia community. I appreciate that you are a concerned and dedicated editor and gave you the benefit of saying you made good faith edits and an honest mistake, even though you aggressively reversed my work on multiple articles instead of contacting me first. Now I am going to say it more plainly: you were wrong to reverse my work based on 1) MOS, 2) WP style preferences, 3) GL guidelines, and 4) community standards that allow the article's creator to select format if several options exist. You are welcome to add content and enhance these or any of the articles I have created; however, changing from the preferred style to a non-preferred style is counterproductive and verges on vandalism now that you have the appropriate MOS citation. If you want a neutral mediator to look at this, that is fine with me. In the meantime, I will continue working through my newest batch of articles to enhance them toward WL class; please be aware that moving text to a table is part of that process. Thanks. Rublamb (talk) 17:18, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Nothing in Manual of Style/Lists requires these tables or enourages editors to edit war with others to impose them. In fact, the guideline makes it clear that no specific style is required: "The title and bullet style, or vertical style, is common for stand-alone lists."
 * Nor is a single reversion an edit war. You do not own those articles nor are there exemptions to our policies and practices regarding reverts and edit wars merely to impose your own preferences.
 * I encourage you to review WP:OWN and WP:AGF. You are welcome to open a discussion in the article's Talk pages or a centralized location such as WP:UNI; in fact, I think that a proposal to modify WP:UNIGUIDE to explicitly recommend that list articles of alumni be formatted as a table would be welcome. But you are not welcome to continue aggressively making wild accusations and engaging in edit wars solely to preserve your own chosen formatting and content. This is a collaborative project and those articles are not yours. ElKevbo (talk) 17:40, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * If there is no specific style required, why did you change the style that was used? What part of MOS where you following? You have yet to support your edits with anything other than your personal preferences. I have backed my work with MOS and examples of Featured Lists articles. I did not create the alumni (table) template, nor I am the person who added tables to hundreds of alumni articles. This is not a case of a possessive editor nor is this about my personal preference; rather, I formatted articles based on MOS and the precedent of FL and WP. If you can provide evidence to prove that my format selection was wrong or against MOS, I will learn, apologize, and move on. I agree that one edit does not make an edit war. However, this is about you going through and changing the format of many of my articles without the backing of MOS and (previously) commenting on other work that I have done--it begins to feel like you are overly territorial about university articles and are verging on harassment when it comes to my work. Have you changed other articles from tables to lists OR is this just something you have done with my articles? I urge you to consider this and why you are so focused on my work; after all, I am not a new editor. MOS exists to solve this very situation. And, MOS and WP Lists trumps other WPs in this instance which I why that is my guide. Again, if you do not believe/agree that MOS makes the case for one list style over the other, why did you change my work? Rublamb (talk) 18:20, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @ElKevbo, As noted on your talk page, I have requested a third opnion in this matter. Rublamb (talk) 19:16, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * You've made no attempt to even open discussion in the article's Talk page or with relevant projects (e.g., WP:UNI). And your description of the dispute is entirely wrong. ElKevbo (talk) 20:14, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Third opinion exists for disagreements between two people which is what this is. You selected the personal talk page venue which is why I am trying to resolve it here. Apologies if my description is not to your liking. I am pretty sure the kind person who tries to help us can get to the root of the problem. Rublamb (talk) 20:37, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The Third Opinion request relates to List of PennWest Edinboro alumni, as well as List of Carroll University alumni. List of Kutztown University of Pennsylvania alumni, and List of University of Wisconsin–Stout alumni. Rublamb (talk) 19:37, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

3O Response: The matter at hand is essentially a style issue, and the general guideline when there are multiple acceptable styles is to stay with the existing style established in the article (MOS:STYLERET, based on the Arbitration Committee: When either of two styles is acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change.) Prior to the split, the alumni list in the parent article appears to have been stylistically stable for over 10 years. That's enough to stick with the bulleted lists, but to be thorough I'll go over all the other points raised (many of them misused) and why they are immaterial or insufficient for a style change. Firstly, WP:BRD is a specific practice for when a discussion comes to a standstill and what User:ElKevbo described is actually what editors mean when they say you have to follow BRD. Neither of these are policies so it is not required to follow them, though I personally feel that the latter is a very good practice to follow (per: Dispute resolution). describes what tables are, some of their benefits and drawbacks, and how they might be used. The only recommendation it makes regarding tables is that care should be exercised for accessibility. About a page up from that it says tables are better-suited to associating content than description lists. That is describing a feature/benefit of tables and is in no way a recommendation for their use. notes Often a list is best left as a list. Before reformatting a list into table form, consider whether the information will be more clearly conveyed by virtue of having rows and columns. ... If there is no obvious benefit to having rows and columns, then a table is probably not the best choice. It was stated that tables are "the standard practice for hundreds of articles". That's an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument and irrelevant: what is of benefit in one situation may not be of benefit in all situations. "featured articles in Wikipedia are designed to demonstrate best practices, all editors are encouraged to follow their example". Sure, and I checked 20 featured lists of alumni (Search link) and all 20 used tables. But if you look into the edit history of the example, List of United States Naval Academy alumni, you can see that it was a mature bullet-point list before editors began table formatting, and it was changed to tables only after there was sufficient data to fill the cells. The best practice for a featured article is not necessarily the best practice for this article, at this stage of its construction. It was stated "tables are the preferred style because of the option to sort by various data points." In the above example, tables were not used until there was enough data to populate the cells, allowing sorting. Here, with the majority of the cells empty, there is absolutely no utility to sorting. (Also, the sorting won't work across the H2 section headers.) "community standards that allow the article's creator to select format if several options exist". I would tread lightly there. Besides the WP:OWN overtones, the content was created by other editors long before you split it to this article name. "counterproductive and verges on vandalism" please read Avoid the word "vandal". Some other articles are mentioned just above this post but I didn't see any linked discussions so can't comment as a 3O, though the same principles apply. In closing, my opinion would be to go with the bulleted lists for now. The editor in favour of tables noted the "significant time investment" in making them, and I'd suggest sandboxing the tables in their userspace until they are ready and then gain consensus to move to the mainspace. That will avoid reverting over the deficiencies in the intermediate stages until a substantial improvement is demonstrable. This is a non-binding third opinion, but I hope it helps! – Reidgreg (talk) 18:59, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Reidgreg. I largely agree with your opinions and recommendations. For what it's worth, my primary objections were (a) ignoring the BRD cycle to impose personal preferences and (b) converting list articles to tables with mostly empty cells. I don't have any generic objections to using a sandbox to begin converting a list article to using tables and copying those tables to the article once most of the cells are filled. ElKevbo (talk) 21:28, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @ElKevbo, I think we both were well-meaning here but were looking at it from difference perspectives. Thinking through this, I choose to work on this content after it was published, rather than finalizing it in a sandbox. Since you are not a mindreader, you had no way of knowing that I planned on finding the sources to fill in the empty cells. I prefer to publish and complete later because others often help in the process and this also makes info available as soon as it is found. It is also a huge time saver to add data straight to a table, rather than formatting a list and then changing to table format. Another decision I made was to go ahead and divide the list into sections even though some of those sections are short. One solution is to remove/not add the professional sections and just have one master list like those in the original university article. However, my goal is/was to set up an article like this for future expansion and growth, making it easier for other editors and users, especially given that many who add to a list like this only make one edit.
 * Clearly, with our 3O response, the thought is that I jumped from a bullteted list to table too soon. However, I made that change following the guidelines for alumni lists in a related WP; now I feel a bit stuck in the middle but that is okay. I asked for the 3O because I don't want to keep bumping heads over minor stuff; I say minor because there is so much undocumented, poorly written content on Wikipedia. Honestly, before getting the message from you that started this chain, I was already a little freaked at getting three messages from you in two weeks, followed by your reversion my work on numerous articles. For me, the 3O provided a needed break. Given that time, where do you think of the current version of the PennWest Edinboro alumni list? Majors for atheletes are always hard to find, but I now have sources for most and at least either class or major for most people on the list. It would be easy to consolidate the short tables; not so easy to go back to bullets. Rublamb (talk) 02:54, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm still not a fan of the tables in that list article but I'm not going to continue to fight about it. In particular, I don't see the merit in the moving that information into tables especially with so many cells still blank. Moreover, it seems highly unlikely that anyone would find value in trying to sort by most of the columns even if they were completely filled in. But if you want to spend your time trying to find that information then you're welcome to spend your time doing that.
 * You may want to open a discussion at WT:UNI or WT:EDU (with a note at WT:UNI pointing to that discussion) if you want to see if there is a prevailing consensus about using tables in these articles. I know of no such consensus although pointing to the number of featured list articles that use that format has some weight. It may help you and others in the future to understand what other editors think about this, especially if you're concerned that other editors may also object. ElKevbo (talk) 03:15, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @ElKevbo, Honestly, its more work to create the tables; if they aren't needed at this stage of a list article that is fine with me moving forward. When you get into really big lists, there is value to being able to sort by class and major. For example: Who is my class became famous? How many people who major in xyz at this college are successful? With regards to class and major, that data is a by-product of finding a source that confirms a person belogs on the list. Most of the people and their corresponding articles lack(ed) a source to prove their connection to the college. The inclusionist in me would rather find the source than cut the content from the original article. But I tend to work on this on and off, taking a break from a major project. Rublamb (talk) 03:42, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Reidgreg: Thanks for your reply. Your insight into the evolution from list to table to FA is sound and does give me pause. I am coming to this projet from a WP that says fifty names equals a stand alone article and a table is the preferred format for alumni list. At some point, I wil kick this over to WP:LIST for more feedback as it crosses over all WPs involved.
 * Although this article had its starting point in content from another article, the list/content is no longer the same. This is a new article that inlcudes an expanded and enhanced list with different organization. I switched to the table format when adding more content: specifically references, class year, and majors that were not included previously. (I will fix the issue with sorting). This new information was the substaintial change that spurred the style change. Splitting content into a new article frequently necessitabes a change in style (did WP UNI have its alumni table template back then?). I made the decision to create the article in stages, organizing and then formatting while using the "in use" notice, but that should not remove the option of updating the format.
 * I stand corrected for using the word vandal and apologize to @ElKevbo for being overly dramatic. However, in one case not reviewed in the 3O, it was not just the format that was reverted, but also added content and other changes. That was specifically what I was referring to. I also appreciate your suggestion of sandboxing, but that is not a viable--creating a table invovles either coding around the each data point or cutting and pasting into the table. To merge an expanded list with an dated, pre-existing table would require something akin to reviewing an edit conflict for the entire document. And, despite any overtones of ownership, my intention to create, update, and move on to something else, not to have this same debate sometime in the future when this list has more names.
 * Sorry to be so wordy. I do appreciate the time you put into this 3O. Rublamb (talk) 22:22, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Frederick E. Olmsted
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Frederick E. Olmsted you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Esculenta -- Esculenta (talk) 14:42, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Talk page archiving
Hi Rublamb! I've noticed you doing a lot of manual archiving of talk pages related to colleges and universities recently. It's always good for talk pages to avoid getting excessively long, so thanks for helping out with that. I'd suggest, though, that a better way to do it might be to set up autoarchiving on pages that do not have it yet. That way, your efforts will improve the talk pages not just currently, but also in an ongoing way as they accumulate threads in the future. For infrequently used talk pages, like many of those you're editing, I like to set a high minimum-thread-to-keep count (around 5), since it's generally more helpful for talk page visitors to see the most recent discussions, even if they were a while back, than to see nothing. Cheers, &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 22:49, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Talk page archiving
Hi Rublamb! I've noticed you doing a lot of manual archiving of talk pages related to colleges and universities recently. It's always good for talk pages to avoid getting excessively long, so thanks for helping out with that. I'd suggest, though, that a better way to do it might be to set up autoarchiving on pages that do not have it yet. That way, your efforts will improve the talk pages not just currently, but also in an ongoing way as they accumulate threads in the future. For infrequently used talk pages, like many of those you're editing, I like to set a high minimum-thread-to-keep count (around 5), since it's generally more helpful for talk page visitors to see the most recent discussions, even if they were a while back, than to see nothing. Cheers, &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 22:49, 13 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your feedback. This cleanup is a side project for something else I am working on that involves hundreds of colleges. Most of what I have archived is more than ten years old, often seventeen years old, or is old bot messages about dead links. I do not like to set up autoarchive on pages that I am not actively monitoring or that have a low level of engagement because autoarchive can't tell if a topic is finished or not; rather, it sees that something hasn't had activity in 3 months and archives it. I do leave some items, regardless of age. It just depends. I do read each discussion to see what its is and to evaluate if if is still important or active. I automatically keep anything from the past 12 months . Autoarchive would actually be less selective and archive most of the items that I am leaving. And, on the technical side, I am using a Beta tool through visual editor, so adding the code for autoarchive is not easily part of my process. But if there have only been four comments added to the talk page in fifteen years, there is really not an urgency for autoarchive. Rublamb (talk) 23:23, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, thanks for explaining. It's true that any autoarchiving system risks removing unaddressed posts, although the hope of using 5 is that, if you require 5 people (or maybe a little less, if you count bot posts, which are thankfully less frequent these days) to go to the talk page and have an opportunity to see a prior thread before you let it get archived, then hopefully there's a pretty good chance at least one of them will see it and address it if it's something worth addressing.
 * It's not a 100% chance, but manual archiving is the only way around it, and manual archiving takes a lot of work, compared to autoarchiving, which is basically zero work (since the initial setup work becomes insignificant averaged out over time). So I'd rank manual archiving fairly low on the list of maintenance tasks to be prioritized. Of course, since we're all volunteering, if doing the manual archiving is distracting you from non-Wikipedia pursuits (vs. other Wikipedia editing), or if you just enjoy it more than other editing you might be doing, then glad to have it. Cheers, &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 23:43, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The main articles I have been creating involve getting data from hundreds on college articles. Archiving is not my jam, but more of a Wiki Fairy thing that I do while there. But you correctly pegged it as a type of procrastination from writing content. :-) Rublamb (talk) 23:57, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Isabelle Urquhart
The article Isabelle Urquhart you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Isabelle Urquhart and Talk:Isabelle Urquhart/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of The Blue Rider -- The Blue Rider (talk) 17:21, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Isabelle Urquhart
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Isabelle Urquhart you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of The Blue Rider -- The Blue Rider (talk) 12:22, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

how can i report user to admin for check is spam
Hi if i want report user is spam and trying to remove some good articles with vote ? how can i report? because the user just put tag for delete with vote and he never made any articles Khtibkiarash (talk) 20:42, 23 October 2023 (UTC)


 * What article? Rublamb (talk) 22:22, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * user Tehonk, is like spamer and i saw he just make vote for delete all articles
 * Like Hassan Golestaneh
 * or Sina Alam
 * because i check he just make vote for delete and he never write any articles or help to wikipedia Khtibkiarash (talk) 22:26, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/Sina Alam Khtibkiarash (talk) 22:26, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/Sahab Alam
 * Articles for deletion/Ali Sharifi Zarchi
 * Articles for deletion/Salman the Persian (TV series)
 * I think he just has problem with Persian and Iranian articles and because Iranian articles, in America they don't know which website is from government and the news they can't understand they are famous because Wikipedia is free article so if some Iranian people want to have English articles too they can have it, but he is working like racist Khtibkiarash (talk) 22:37, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Why so many mistakes in Lamar University?
This edit to Lamar University in August introduced a lot of errors. If you made similar mistakes in other articles, please take the time to go back and clean them up. ElKevbo (talk) 02:53, 24 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that was glitch in Grammerly (which happens every now and then. I usually catch it when it happens but obviously missed it that time. THanks for letting me know. Rublamb (talk) 03:11, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @ElKevbo, I have not used Grammerly for very long and wondered if you use it? One option with Grammerly is to accept corrections in a pop-up box. A couple of times I have discovered that those correction are made, but not in the right place. A comma might get inserted in the middle of word or a misspelled word might have the correction inserted randomly near the error. THe edits cannot be seen while using this pop-up tool. I have assumed this is an issue with the Wikipedia-Grammerly interface caused by out-of-sync updates and have not reported it. Do you think I should? I can't be the only person this has happened to. I know plenty of editor say Grammerly is a mess and should not be used. In the past, I used it before goinvg publising a new article by copying and pasting the text into Grammerly, rather than using the in-Wikipedia editor. But sometimes I see an article that has so many issues that Grammerly seems like a great tool. And then this happened... Rublamb (talk) 22:50, 24 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Sorry but I've never used it. You could try asking at WP:VPT to see if other editors have experience using it. ElKevbo (talk) 23:37, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestion. I may have to go back to the slower, human form of editing. Technology is great until it isnt'. Rublamb (talk) 23:41, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @ElKevbo, VPT says it is a known issue and sent me to an essay about not using Grammarly. So, now I have asked the Guild of Copy editors why Grammrly is included in their manual as a tool to use (which is where I learned about it a several months ago). Again, thanks for noticing this. I am glad you know my work enough to realize it was not vandalism. Rublamb (talk) 12:04, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Sandbox links to dab pages
Where is the best place to note entries in your sandbox that are to dab pages (for city or college). I don't want to make the changes there.Naraht (talk) 18:07, 27 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm not working on Ps Chi today (or probably tomorrow either), so go ahead and make edits that are needed. Since I added the code for the links to the colleges in Excel, there are many to fix and/or research. Help would be appreciated. Rublamb (talk) 18:11, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Will do, and that is a lift. I added the tool a while ago that shows bluelinks to dab links as Orange so they are pretty easy to spot.Naraht (talk) 18:29, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Adding ", U.S." to short descriptions
My revert at Scripps College likely also applies to several other institutions in your recent run, in California, as well as other similar states like Texas. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 15:25, 29 October 2023 (UTC)


 * @Sdkb, Unless you know of a guideline in MOS, I appear to be following the current guidelines for short descriptions. Please see the response from WikiProject Short Descriptions on the matter: Wikipedia talk:Short description. While your edits do match the proposed standards from two years ago, that was not adopted. I will consider your thoughts on this moving forward but there is no need for you to reverse any of these edits according to the WP. Rublamb (talk) 18:08, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Changing to External Link???
In the following edit, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Carnegie_Mellon_University_fraternities_and_sororities&diff=next&oldid=1181593418, why did you change the link for Alpha Phi Omega from an internal link to an external one? Naraht (talk) 23:52, 31 October 2023 (UTC)


 * No idea how or why, but it is fixed now. Rublamb (talk) 00:13, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Vance Monument
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Vance Monument you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Chilicave -- Chilicave (talk) 14:22, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Archive at Talk:Anthropology
Hi Rublamb, I noticed your recent activity at Talk:Anthropology. You moved all the sections to Archive_1, however an Archive_2 already exists. This has made it so that half of Archive_1 (everything you just moved there) is from later dates than all of Archive_2. Is this fixable? --Pinchme123 (talk) 19:34, 31 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Just checked. Its a known bug in the new version of the archive tool. Manually moving may be the only solution. I will take a look. Rublamb (talk) 20:03, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking into it. Does fixing this just mean copying-pasting the content from Archive_1 to Archive_2? --Pinchme123 (talk) 01:14, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I think so. As long as it is done with the code. However since the archive is keyword searchable, date order is not as important. Rublamb (talk) 01:20, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok I think I understand. If you don't plan to move the archives, then I can do it. My plan is to do the following: 1) revert the changes to Archive_1. 2) revert the changes to Talk:Anthropology. 3) Place the safesubst shortcut template on Talk:Anthropology for pointing the archiver at Archive_2. 4) Archive the sections one-by-one, like you previously did. Is me doing this going to mess anything up? --Pinchme123 (talk) 02:08, 1 November 2023 (UTC) Addendum: I've read up on the preferred procedures for archiving and it looks like I could just copy the content from Archive_1 and pasting it to Archive_2, then removing from Archive_1. So I'll just do this. --Pinchme123 (talk) 02:29, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't reply earlier. I think that if you add auto archive, step number four won't be necessary. However, it is not essentioal for items to be archived in date order as they are usually sequenced in archive date order, not chronological order. I know this is not perfect as is, but I hate for you to go to that trouble. But it is totally your call. Rublamb (talk) 18:39, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Hassan Golestaneh for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hassan Golestaneh, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Articles for deletion/Hassan Golestaneh (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Photo request
Hello, The photo request you reinserted is already present in the Biography template of the page. Do you think it is necessary to have both? If so, sure, but I thought maybe you had missed the duplicate request, so just letting you know. Best, - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)  16:11, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Richard Urquhart Goode
The article Richard Urquhart Goode you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Richard Urquhart Goode and Talk:Richard Urquhart Goode/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of APK -- APK (talk) 19:22, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Richard Urquhart Goode
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Richard Urquhart Goode you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of APK -- APK (talk) 07:03, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Koringa
Hallo, Thanks for your work on this article, but please remember to use straight quotes and apostrophes rather than curly or slanted ones. Thanks. Pam D  21:40, 6 December 2023 (UTC)


 * @PamD The puncuation you are referring to was there before I made edits. I did not add any quotations or copy text from the Internet. Take it up with the former editor as this is the source of these characters.. Rublamb (talk) 22:19, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * You're right that I hadn't gone through my added references carefully enough, converting the curly quotes, but in this edit you added them to the lead. Anyway, I've fixed them all now. Pam  D  23:19, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I did by copying from the article text that already existed. But thanks for acknowledging. Rublamb (talk) 23:26, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

DYK for St. Anthony Hall
Z1720 (talk) 12:02, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Carl A. Schenck
RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Hamilton Geale
Could you rescue this one please? FloridaArmy (talk) 01:09, 11 November 2023 (UTC)


 * @FloridaArmy: Finally got around to it and have now published. It still lacks a big source, but I did find info on him in newspapers in three countries. Also, he was a judge and a politician--which really may be his claim to notability based on the covereage. I suspect his landed gentry title came from his wife; he is not listed in the books of landed gentry, but she is through her father. There are some literary reviews of his Italy book that I did not include--that may be something you want to follow up on. I could not find anything about the plagiarism case, which is surprising. Again, that would make sense to expand. There was also some weirdness about evicting tennants that made it to the US, Irish, and English newspapers. I wasn't sure what was going on, so did not include it. Not sure it makes sense to include without context. Rublamb (talk) 04:21, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Frederick E. Olmsted
theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:02, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors December 2023 Newsletter
Message sent by Baffle gab1978 using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:54, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 16
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sujatha Vidyalaya, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Matara.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks
Some years ago I saw an error on the USGS website about a particular location in California. I sent a message about the error. The needed correction was made with no delay. Again, I thank USGS and staff (you) for your work. – S. Rich (talk) 01:28, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks
Some years ago I saw an error on the USGS website about a particular location in California. I sent a message about the error. The needed correction was made with no delay. Again, I thank USGS and staff (you) for your work. – S. Rich (talk) 01:28, 20 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Yes, they will respond to citizen and volunteer reported corrections which is pretty cool. The real heroes were the 19th-century guys who physically visited sites to make maps. My great-grandfather was the second head of topography for everything west of the Mississippi, replacing his first cousin Richard Urquhart Goode. He inserted the pins to triangulate at least 150 topo maps that I know of and mapped many of the national parks. Consider that they actually climbed the peaks to document height and insert the USGS markers! I had no idea of the scope of his work until the maps were online. Their work is still used today--and the name of the original person who did the triangulation is still included on the maps. But by the time I was in college in the 1980s, satellite and aerial photography was being used to update maps. I guess funding for boots on the ground and mapping is a thing of the past. I don't know of another branch of the government that uses volunteer labor in the same way except the National Weather Service which still relies on its Citizen Weather Observing Program to track rainfall. Rublamb (talk) 14:21, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Re-opened AfDs
I withdrew the bundled canoeists AfD and re-opened Articles for deletion/Manaka Kubota and Articles for deletion/Teruko Kiriake, just notifying you and the other !voters in the prior AfD. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:47, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Women in Red January 2024
--Lajmmoore (talk) 20:18, 28 December 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Cornell Law alumni list
It's great that you created a separate list of Cornell Law alumni, but the formatting that you altered is helpful and is used in the alumni lists of several other similar institutions. Could you please restore the original formatting to the new list? Thanks 2601:281:D900:4A00:E56F:EE77:3D36:3914 (talk) 03:39, 3 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I'm a bit confused as the format of the list is the same. I did trim the descriptions of notability as this is meant to be a short description, leading people to the main article if they want to know more. This list does, in fact, conform to the normal format for alumni lists. I have created dozens of these from scratch and made major contributions to many more as a member of both WikiProject Higher Ed and WikiProject Lists. In your future efforts, note that dates in the format (1999-present) do not conform to the Manual of Style (MOS) as the term "present" easily becomes inaccurate. In addition, each item in the list is supposed to have a citation, proving the connection to the institution. Rublamb (talk) 14:36, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Here are examples of the format I'm referring to, which was changed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Harvard_Law_School_alumni; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Columbia_Law_School_alumni;
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Yale_Law_School_alumni
 * The reason it matters is that the list is now confusing (or incorrect). For instance, you have one racing executive (Cameron Argetsinger) listed under Sports and another (Teddy Mayer) listed under Business. You have a political advisor (Frances Kellor) listed under "Other Federal offices" and, even more to the point, Leonard Leo is now on that same list (the Federalist Society is not a part of the federal government). I know you're working to improve things, and I really appreciate that. All I'm asking is for you to restore the list to the format of the other schools' so that it can be arranged in a more accurate and user-friendly way. 2601:281:D900:4A00:F052:9A55:EE93:7BA0 (talk) 17:38, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * With reguards to restoring the article to an earlier version or the first version, that would revert other beneficial changes and is not a practical request. I am still confused by your use of the word format. Format refers to the layout of the article. The example you provided and the article in question have the same formst. There is a section header, followed by a bulleted list arranged by name, degree, class year, notability, and source. If you are referring to the order of the sections, MOS for lists is alphabetical or chronological. This makes it easier for readers to find content. If the subsections are not in alphabetial order, it can cause undue emphasis an certain types of professions which is more appropriate for college marketing than an encyclopedic article in Wikipedia. (This is called academic boosterism in Wikipedia and is a constant battle to fix). With regards to placement of individuals into sections, it is a process and there are always people that don't really fit into any category. In closer examination of the three you mentioned, two had notability descriptions that did not cover their most significant accomplishments. All three are now moved to what I believe is a better fit. Of course, you are welcome to move names as you think appropriate. Just be sure to declare your affiliation with Cornell on the talkpage, if appropriate. Rublamb (talk) 18:55, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hello, Rublamb

Thank you for creating Frank Howell Holden.

User:North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with. Please remember to sign your reply with ~.

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 16:55, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Invitation
Hello ! Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around!
 * The New Pages Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help.
 * We think that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the guidelines for granting.
 * Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines.
 * Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision, and feel free to post on the project talk page with questions.
 * If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please consider applying here.

Sent by using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 07:51, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Junior College of Bergen County or Bergen Junior College?
Should the article for Junior College of Bergen County be renamed to Bergen Junior College, which seems to be the most commonly used name for the school, as seen at this source among many others. Alansohn (talk) 02:06, 14 January 2024 (UTC)


 * @Alansohn: That is a great question and one that I asked myself. The college went by Junior College of Bergen County and then changed its name to Bergen College (but did not change its name legally). It appears that Bergen Junior College was a common name, but not one that was used by the college itself. All print sources seem to have ignored the n==ame change to Bergen College (which is why I did not use that for the article title). I have tried to think of another example where we have named the article after a common name that was not officially used by the institution. Would it be like calling the UNC-CH article Carolina? I was hoping to get some feedback from someone associated with the college. In the meantime, I did a redirect for BJC, but can easily delete that and move the article if that is what makes the most sense. @ElKevbo, what do you think? Rublamb (talk) 02:41, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It seems that all of the existing mentions to the institution in articles used "Bergen Junior College' and it seems the be the common name used in contemporaneous sources. Not a critical issue, but we should probably come to a decision. Alansohn (talk) 03:37, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Moving this discussion to Talk:Junior College of Bergen County Rublamb (talk) 12:01, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Women in Red February 2024
--Lajmmoore (talk 20:10, 28 January 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Omicron Nu
please use inuse...Naraht (talk) 15:03, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for the possible collision on Beta Alpha Psi
I hadn't reloaded since my last edit, so I didn't see the article note on being in active use. :(Naraht (talk) 20:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

February 2024
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, articles should not be moved without good reason. They should have a name that is both accurate and intuitive. Wikipedia has some guidelines in place to help with this. Generally, a page should only be moved to a new title if the current name doesn't follow these guidelines. Also, if a page move is being discussed, consensus needs to be reached before anybody moves the page. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Wikipedia. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 04:50, 20 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Hello, Rublamb,
 * I watch the Move log and recently I've seen you move articles around multiple times. This creates unnecessary redirects and makes it seem like you don't know what you want to do with an article. Please think through page moves before you do one, make sure that the spelling is correct and is going to the right namespace. You shouldn't need to move an article 2 or 3 or 4 times before it gets to its final destination. Also make sure to leave an edit summary with every edit, especially page moves, so other editors understand why you are choosing to do what you are doing. Thank you. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 04:53, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 20
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Scottish Mortgage Investment Trust Book Awards, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Barrington.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Psi Beta:
Countdown to the chapter list being split into its own article. :)Naraht (talk) 03:51, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Nat Turner for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Nat Turner is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Nat Turner until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 22:02, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Beta Sigma Omicron
Indiana University of Pennsylvania is mismatched, the text above said it went to Alpha Phi, as does the visible text in the box, but the note says Zeta Tau Alpha. I'm guessing the note is incorrect. Also, what originally took me there is links to Alpha Pi, not Alpha Phi in the notes, I presume those should be Alpha Phi.Naraht (talk) 19:19, 5 March 2024 (UTC)


 * ✅ @Naraht, Thanks for catching these latenight errors. I still cannot figure out how to stop the text from centering, except for moving the text to a new table. Rublamb (talk) 19:27, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of George Carnegie Palmer
The article George Carnegie Palmer you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:George Carnegie Palmer and Talk:George Carnegie Palmer/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Grungaloo -- Grungaloo (talk) 04:21, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of George Carnegie Palmer
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article George Carnegie Palmer you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Grungaloo -- Grungaloo (talk) 22:45, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Richard Sharp Smith
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Richard Sharp Smith you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Grungaloo -- Grungaloo (talk) 03:23, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of J. Cleaveland Cady
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article J. Cleaveland Cady you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Unexpectedlydian -- Unexpectedlydian (talk) 17:22, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Delta Phi Alpha
Should the chapter list be pulled out into its own page?Naraht (talk) 19:50, 10 December 2023 (UTC)


 * @Naraht: Its meets our length guideline but only has a primary source, so might be challenged. Do you know of another source we can list with it? It can even be something to go with the lede about the group. I think I have a couple of these now. Rublamb (talk) 20:52, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Naraht, Or should I just go ahead and move it? Rublamb (talk) 01:36, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Naraht: took me a while, but I found another source so that this could be published as its own article. Rublamb (talk) 02:53, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Women in Red March 2024
--Lajmmoore (talk 20:23, 25 February 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red April 2024
--Lajmmoore (talk 19:43, 30 March 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Thanks and Small Editorial Issue on User Page
Rublamb,

You’ve been a great help with a couple of related topics regarding OXE, including one of my drafts. I know I said it before in the thread, but i appreciate the support in helping clean up my beginner mess!

As I was viewing your user page, I just happened to notice a little link/grammatic issue. In your interest section, as it just sticks out like a sore thumb to me, “Social history” links to to social history unsurprisingly, but the hyperlink itself doesn’t full encapsulate the work.

Just a little something I noticed I wanted to mention besides giving you thanks for help through my bumbling first steps in editing. ChemicalBear (talk) 17:28, 9 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks. And congrats on getting your first article published. Rublamb (talk) 21:52, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

AKA Boules
Why the merger? Naraht (talk) 15:10, 8 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Finally addressing something we talked about a while ago on--that these lists of conventions are not notable and should not be included in articles, and that the better practice is to note conventions where something important happened in the text of the article. Meaning that we also needed to look at these stand-alone articles. In my review, I found that some of these convention list articles have extensive content relating to the organization's history, secondary sources, and photos that translated to encyclopedic value. However, this article was a basic list with very few details that might be of encyclopedic value. It also did not stand up to Wikipedia's standard for notability regarding sources. There were to options: AfD or merger. Merger made the most sense to me and also led to updating some dated content in the AKA article. Rublamb (talk) 15:29, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Women in Red May 2024
--Lajmmoore (talk 06:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

The Signpost: 16 May 2024
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:58, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 April 2024
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:49, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of Florida Blue Key members


The article List of Florida Blue Key members has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "No evidence of notability, no independent (non-University) sources for the group per WP:LISTN"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Fram (talk) 09:34, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Alpha Epsilon Rho
Wierd schools? Naraht (talk) 15:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I have figured out the really weird ones (old names not similar to current names that were not redirects in Wikipedia). I think "Detroit" and "Indiana" are the only ones left. Did Baird's use "Detroit" for Detroit Mercy? Do you know which school would have been called "Indiana"? This is the downside of JAX sending 20th ed. pages--I don't have the college sectons to confirm names. Rublamb (talk) 17:51, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 8 June 2024
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Reggie Barnes (skateboarder)
The article Reggie Barnes (skateboarder) you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Reggie Barnes (skateboarder) for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Arconning -- Arconning (talk) 14:04, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Women in Green GA Editathon June 2024 - Going Back in Time
<div style="border: 6px solid #2bbf08; background: #FFF; background-color:#FFFFFF; padding: 1ex 1ex 1ex 1.5ex; margin: 0px 0px 1em 1em; font-size: 99%"> Hello :

WikiProject Women in Green is holding a  month-long Good Article Edit-a-thon event in June 2024!

Running from June 1 to 30, 2024, WikiProject Women in Green (WiG) is hosting a Good Article (GA) edit-a-thon event with the theme Going Back in Time! All experience levels welcome. Never worked on a GA project before? We'll teach you how to get started. Or maybe you're an old hand at GAs – we'd love to have you involved! Participants are invited to work on nominating and/or reviewing GA submissions related to women and women's works (e.g., books, films) during the event period. We hope to collectively cover article subjects from at least 20 centuries by month's end. GA resources and one-on-one support will be provided by experienced GA editors, and participants will have the opportunity to earn a special WiG barnstar for their efforts.

We hope to see you there! You are receiving this message as a member of the WikiProject Women in Green. You can remove yourself from receiving notifications here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Women in Red June 2024
--Lajmmoore (talk 07:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Hi
how are you ? could you take to this article please User:Editorjummy/sandbox and what is your idea? Editorjummy (talk) 06:08, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Women in Red August 2024
--Lajmmoore (talk 14:29, 30 June 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Your GA nomination of Isabelle Urquhart
The article Isabelle Urquhart you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Isabelle Urquhart for comments about the article, and Talk:Isabelle Urquhart/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", 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 at 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 The Blue Rider -- The Blue Rider (talk) 09:24, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Vance Monument
The article Vance Monument you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Vance Monument for comments about the article, and Talk:Vance Monument/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", 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 at 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 Chilicave -- Chilicave (talk) 03:21, 24 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Congrats on the GA! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 14:38, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Another Believer: How far is it from FA? Or will it get slammed for being too detailed? Rublamb (talk) 00:07, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Another Believer, Well, I can't get past DYK, so clearly not even close to FA. LOL. Rublamb (talk) 18:39, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

College and University Short Descriptions
I've got to go to bed, so I apologize for kicking off a discussion and not being available, but you're making a lot of edits to short descriptions for colleges and universities, they're not consistent, and some appear ill-advised (for example, you're removing descriptions of HBCUs as such, you're trimming out "US" from some and leaving it in others where you're shortening other parts of the short description). You're possibly in danger of falling afoul of WP:MEATBOT. I'd give people a chance to take a look and catch up. Jahaza (talk) 06:57, 7 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Please take some time to better understand what we look for in short descriptions before making changes at this scale. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 07:03, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sdkb, I am aware of what is looked for in short descriptions. All of the edits I have made were for descriptions that exceeded the ideal of 40 characters. For exmaple, converting "United States" to "US" or removing details that were excessive given the limited space. I have said many times before, short descriptions for colleges and universities are challenging and sometime require variations for space or to include basic content. Rublamb (talk) 07:20, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The fact that they're challenging suggests all the more that you should consult with others and avoid making dozens or hundreds of changes quickly, but to think them through carefully. Jahaza (talk) 07:21, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sdkb, By challenging, I meant to fit the description within the character guideline. Sorry if I wasn't clear on that. I hope you will agree that no discussion is required over abbreviating the United States or changing to the standard format for university and college short descriptions. (I can provide examples if that helps). I have added or updated many, many college and university short descriptions; I would think at least 500. Typically, there is a correlation between long short descriptions and articles that are flagged for academic puffery. Also, some of my edits are based on WP chats. Rublamb (talk) 07:51, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Jahaza, Thanks for your concern. I am working on a long list that includes looking at a lot of college pages. Because I participate in WP Short Descriptions and WP Higher Ed, I try to fix issues that I find. Specifically, I am trimming short descriptions for length. Unfortunately, it is very difficult for college short descriptions to be 40 characters or less; there simply is not room for details such as "liberal arts" or "historically black" or "research institution" given the norm of listing place name along with either college or university. It may seem random, but in WP discussions, it was decided that US could be included for less famous states even if it goes to 44 characters but that US was not needed for states like Texas, California, Florida, New York, etc. Thus, my edits are consistent within guidelines and goals of both WPs. Rublamb (talk) 07:10, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Colleges and universities are not primarily locations, so I'm not sure that we need to always favor location language over description. Especially when the location is in the name of the University.
 * In addition, the "rule" that short descriptions be 40 characters or less is not actually a rule, so it's not always better to be shorter than that and have less information. Jahaza (talk) 07:19, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that 40 is a guideline and not a rule. However, in the past, I have been criticized for adding college short descriptions that were in the 40 to 50-character range. In some of the edits I made this evening, some were closer to 60 characters and clearly needed trimming. The logic behind such edits is that the description often gets cut off at 40 characters in viewers, so anything over that length may not be visible or useful. For consistency, the format for most college/university short descriptions is: Private/Public college/university in city, state, US. Sometimes private/public is replaced with church affiliation, historically black, or women's. I do get your point about location, but my short answer is that it depends. With the University of North Carolina at Asheville, the location is very clear. However, I suspect that most Wikipedia users would not recognize that Elon University was a place or the state name. That is why sometimes I will skip the city name for some other detail but, in general, don't think general readers are familiar with college towns. Rublamb (talk) 07:43, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I was too harsh above; it does appear that you've put significant thought into this, and your views (particularly on when to include US) mostly align with mine.
 * But I share Jahaza's concern about replacing so many instances of "liberal arts"/"historically black"/"women's" with "public"/"private". The way I think about this is, what is the most defining aspect of the institution? (To understand "defining", in turn, I ask, how much would this place be different if this thing were changed?) An institution's public/private status is an important piece of information about it, but in these instances it's not the most important piece of information.
 * To take one example, at Howard University, you replaced Historically black university with Private university, which I think was a deleterious edit. There are some readers who might not know whether Howard is public or private, but anyone who knows anything at all about it knows that it's an HBCU. If it were public, it'd be a quite different place, but if it weren't an HBCU, it wouldn't be Howard. Therefore, the short description should be Historically black university in Washington, D.C. to best help assure readers searching that they've found the right article. (N.b. This brings it to 49 characters, a little over the limit. It causes it to go onto a second line in the mobile search results, but it still looks fine, as it would if it were cut off slightly.)
 * It's a similar situation for most liberal arts colleges (where the small size/liberal arts focus is more defining than the private status) and women's colleges. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 05:32, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sdkb: Thanks for your reply and for expressing your concerns. I agree with you on HBC, especially for Howard. I appreciate the reminder to not always give in to those loud voices for short descriptions. (I used to be the person who added things like HBC to descriptions only to be slammed for making then too long). As noted elsewhere, I always use “women’s” or religious affiliation when appropriate, so that is not an issue.
 * However, I do believe that “public/private” is more important in the United States than “liberal arts” in most cases as it defines an institution's history, alumni, student body, operating structure, institutional philosophy, and tuition rates. In contrast, “liberal arts” only describes academics and, even then, may not accurately reflect what a college offers or what its top majors are. Consider that the United States Naval Academy is ranked as the top liberal arts institution in the US! In the'' U.S. News & World Report Best Colleges Ranking, public or private is the first division made to its lists. Certainly, it is something that potential students and Wikipedia readers look for.
 * As someone who has a Master of Liberal Arts degree who has worked at a liberal arts institution that hired consultants to study public perception, I can tell you that the phrase "liberal arts" has little meaning outside of academia and is a component of the academic experience at most colleges except technical schools. For example, as an undergraduate, I was required to complete a liberal arts curriculum at what is classed as a major research institution; the average experience of most undergraduate students at that institution has little to do with the “research” tag. However, the public/private component there was huge as it factored into tuition and the type of students. Harvard claims to provide a liberal arts education but is also classed as a research institution. Yet, “private” probably says more about Harvard to most people than “research institution” or “liberal arts.”
 * As I have looked at universities and colleges in Wikipedia, it would be fair to say that most small colleges that are not religious claim to offer a liberal arts education. Thus, that distinction is not as unique as their marketing would imply, but the funding model is more so. Maybe using the term “small” instead makes sense since the distinction between college and university is now blurred by institutional names. However, I may be an outlier here and will take this WP:UNI see what they say. Thanks. Rublamb (talk) 15:42, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 6
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tau Alpha, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Clark, Pampanga.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:44, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

July 2024
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Chattahoochee Valley Community College, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. 333fortheain (talk) 00:19, 12 July 2024 (UTC)


 * @333fortheain: I am an experienced edtior who has created or edited at least 500 short descriptions for university and college articles. Having a specific location (instead of just the state or country) and content that does not just duplicate the title of the article is the preferred guideline for WP:Short Descriptions and MOS. I will be restoring my changes to the short description. Rublamb (talk) 00:23, 12 July 2024 (UTC)