On 14 September 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Bork tapes, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that judge Robert Bork's leaked list of video rentals included movies such as Citizen Kane, The Philadelphia Story and Sixteen Candles? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Bork tapes. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Bork tapes), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—Kusma (talk) 12:02, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 12,400 views (1,033.3 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of September 2023 – nice work!

GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:29, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello GalliumBot, These picture have been for more that 15 years maybe. Few were added recently. Should I create a new heading with Education, Lectures and Visits in Pictures. I will appreciate guidance. Thanks Surance (talk) 00:21, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. Just wanted to open up a discussion section to avoid removing good work without instead fixing it. I disagree that each of the notes needs to be cited, as they are each discussed and cited later in the article. SerAntoniDeMiloni (talk) 19:43, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SerAntoniDeMiloni The problem is that the notes use Wikipedia articles as a source, which is prohibited per WP:CIRCULAR. GuardianH (talk) 19:55, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @GuardianH. Notes are not meant to be sources, but instead meant to provide elaborations. As in the article, if someone wants an elaboration on ie 'literary arts', the note provides them an explanation and the page to see. Not sure there's any better way to do this. SerAntoniDeMiloni (talk) 20:00, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SerAntoniDeMiloni If I might comment on this, it also abridges WP:NOR. Like an academic paper, it makes a value judgement based on the importance of a subject (i.e., see, for example, [topic]). That "for example" is ascribing weight to a subject in relation without a source – who decides what to see for an example? This is quite subtle original research, but original research nonetheless and due to be removed. GuardianH (talk) 18:52, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @GuardianH. I'm still not sure we're on the same page, though. Everything on Wikipedia has been written by editors who have individual skews and have taken thousands of points of information and prioritised those which, based on their judgement, are more important. I'd rather prompt that the notes in the lede are in lieu of 'See x page' that can be found in articles pointing readers to the main page. SerAntoniDeMiloni (talk) 22:32, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SerAntoniDeMiloni I don't think any of those are at issue. Editors also make some of the same mistakes collectively, but that doesn't justify the mistakes, of course. If it is original research, it should be removed — and in this case it is OR. GuardianH (talk) 20:43, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Most picture were there for many years. Should I post them under new heading and reduce the number. Would appreciate guidance. Thanks. Surance (talk) 00:46, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is a very good point. Good job! 38.111.224.51 (talk) 04:22, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lawrence Collins, Baron Collins of Mapesbury, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page LLM.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, GuardianH. Thank you for your work on Phil Calabrese. User:Voorts, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Please remember to tag redirects that you create per WP:REDCAT.

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

voorts (talk/contributions) 01:05, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see that on 24th August 2022 you edited the influences parameter for Steven Pinker. I don't suppose they bothered to tell you, but as part of a massive purge involving at least 3000 articles the influences and influenced parameters were removed by PrimeBot in the last few days. If you have any thoughts about this there is a discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Infobox_scientist#Influences/influenced_--_abuse_of_power Athel cb (talk) 12:57, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Clarence Thomas, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL" error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 21:42, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. I've come from Helena Hamerow where you've done some more "condensing". Why have you removed the school from Charles Wesley?? I'll just copy and paste what I've said to you in the past:

Actually, you've made a fair few edits to British biographies that appear to be based of incorrect assumptions. For example, it is not "condensing" to turn All Souls College, Oxford, Faculty of Classics, University of Oxford, St John's College, Oxford, and Brasenose College, Oxford into University of Oxford. This is like condensing University of California, Berkeley and University of California, Santa Cruz into one University of California. Oxford and Cambridge are weird universities: the colleges are (for the most part) independent institutions; and there are many illogical facets, such as "students" of Christ Church, Oxford actually being the academics, or Master of Arts degrees not being real degrees.
In the UK, we separate education (childhood school; university is not considered a "school") from alma mater which is any/all universities that someone attended (they don't need to have graduated with a degree from them).
Professor has a different meaning in the UK. Someone with the profession of a university teacher is known as an academic or lecturer. A professor is the most senior type of academic, and a title of distinction, it is not an occupation description. The UK and US (mostly) share a language but there are differences. So please educate yourself before making any more such changes. I'm happy to point you in the right direction, or just have a look at British biographies and other Wiki articles. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 14:27, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

As above, I'm happy to point you in the right direction. This was a good edit for example. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 12:35, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with all this. Johnbod (talk) 17:00, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GuardianH, what do you think about what an unregistered editor is doing on the Groton page? It seems like he or she is a connected contributor. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 18:48, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak directly regarding the situation. But when it comes to WP:COI problems, the first thing is to warn the user using a template like Template:Uw-coi. Any edits that are WP:PROMOTION of course must be removed, and there is also the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. GuardianH (talk) 19:03, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for cleaning up that mess! DMacks (talk) 16:12, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I know what the point is of making it smaller, since what dictates width in that infobox is the 26 innings of line score and at least from my perspective, making it smaller just increases whitespace and makes it harder to read. Wehwalt (talk) 19:24, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have no doubt that making the image a huge size makes it more visible, but it actually makes the article harder to read, rather than easier. A fine balance between good chunks of paragraph and portrait is best — with an image of that size, the paragraphs are far too squished. GuardianH (talk) 19:29, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that it makes the paragraphs any less squished because the line score (the inning-by-inning) is what is making the infobox so wide and doing the squishing. Perhaps it depends on what skin you use? Wehwalt (talk) 19:38, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your considerable efforts to assure balance in the C.T. article. Thanks also for including the Jackson quote. Though I have respected him immensely, I never thought of him, one way or the other, as being possessed with a sense of humor. ____

Hello, GuardianH. Thank you for your work on Michael Stokes Paulsen. User:Maliner, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

He Appears to pass NPROF.

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

Maliner (talk) 15:29, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cleon H. Foust, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Columbia City.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This might count as vandalism. Let me know what you think about the dozens of higher ed edits about "American English" made by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Jacona Seems bizarre to me. --Melchior2006 (talk) 07:19, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's ok. I think the editor is just adding those templates to distinguish/notify editors to use American English as opposed to British English; the changes aren't visible to readers. I think this would be normal copyediting. GuardianH (talk) 02:02, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I listed Talk:Clarence_Thomas#Thurgood_Marshall_image_and_legend at Wikipedia:Third_opinion#Active_disagreements. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 19:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If I have this correctly you dropped a significant portion of the 3rd paragraph of front-page description of NJIT. Maybe it's me, but as far as I can tell similar information is provided in similar locations in most Wiki college pages. I suggest you visit a few, e.g. MIT, RPI, NYU, Illinois Institute of Technology, UC Davis, UCLA, Columbia University. I could go on but if you check their Wikipedia pages, I think you will find not only that inclusion of a sports summary and a listing of notable awards/fellowships is the norm among institutions that have them, but also some of those summaries run on longer than the two sentences you apparently decided should be dropped in NJIT's case. Your record suggests that you are highly involved in Wikipedia which surprised me given that what you dropped is pretty much standard practice in college write-ups. I haven't had a dispute over content with any editor in years (and only once is my editing life). So, if you think I am wrong about this, could you open a discussion with an arbitrator as I am very rusty. Richard Simone Rrsimone (talk) 18:56, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is unconventional to use the phrase 'serving' for salaried positions at private institutions. He is on salary at Harvard, and Harvard is a private institution where employees and faculty do not 'serve'. Its different for the military and government positions. I'll try a third type of simplified description, otherwise you can take it Talk at the artile talk page. HenryRoan (talk) 19:02, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GuardianH, we know each other from higher-ed stuff. You really know your way around Wikipedia. I am no newcomer, myself, with more than 10,000 edits in German and English, but I do have questions from time to time. Mainly it has to do with conflict resolution, the quest for better referencing, puff reduction and so on. Could you take me on as a mentee for these areas? -- Melchior2006 (talk) 07:57, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Melchior2006, I'm unfortunately not the best mentor for such issues, and I fear that I would mislead you in some areas — there are editors much more versed in discussion and conflict resolution than myself. Most of my work is usually a passion project, and as such I try to best avoid any direct conflict. However, I'm always open for the questions, and I'm always willing to collab with you on article! With the amount of stuff on the site, it seems to me that the best teacher is experience; it certainly was for me. GuardianH (talk) 18:22, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see what you mean. If I have questions, I will write you on an ad hoc basis. Is that ok? And as you say, the best way is learning by doing, so if we can collab on some articles, all the better! --Melchior2006 (talk) 07:22, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, no worries. GuardianH (talk) 07:26, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I listed Talk:Clarence_Thomas#Thurgood_Marshall_image_and_legend at Wikipedia:Third_opinion#Active_disagreements. The editor who responded to the initial listing was blocked as a suspected sockpuppet. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 12:52, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited John Demers, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Above the Law.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have added his second book to his biography with a short summary cited to his book. You are reverting a cited addition to the article. If you did not see the references cited to the book itself, then you should restore the section. HenryRoan (talk) 13:56, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of books required citations to the book being summarized. This is not NOR. The citations to the book are already there. Start Talk page if needed. HenryRoan (talk) 14:02, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Who is giving the summary? Who is synthesizing information to present it to the reader? When you give a summary, you are condensing information and making editorial decisions what to include, what not to include, and what to write. The only source you provided is the primary source, so these decisions are made by you, which makes it WP:NOR. GuardianH (talk) 21:12, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia editors are the ones who write the summaries on a daily basis for textbooks, novels, plays, and films. MOS states the policy as: "The plot summary for a work, on a page about that work, does not need to be sourced with in-line citations, as it is generally assumed that the work itself is the primary source for the plot summary." HenryRoan (talk) 15:19, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What you just cited comes from Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction. Ely is nonfiction. You need to cite your sources without WP:NOR. GuardianH (talk) 21:13, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe that Wikipedia policy for summaries for fiction are different than summaries for nonfiction at Wikipedia, then that sounds incorrect. As I stated above, summaries for textbooks, novels, plays and films (fiction and nonfiction) do not require citations ("does not need to be sourced" to secondary sources). HenryRoan (talk) 03:58, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At Harvard (& historically, Radcliffe), Bachelor's degrees are called "A.B", not "B.A.". I've reverted a few of your recent changes but it would save other editors a lot of trouble if you could undo the rest yourself. Special-T (talk) 15:42, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Universities do that for ceremonial purposes. They name it as an "A.B." for the sake of using the Latin artium baccalaureus, and due to the Latin usage a lot of the degree names are in a reverse order. Universities in general do not get to dictate policy on Wikipedia, and reflecting this ceremonial usage is WP:JARGON. To take an example, Harvard also still labels their M.S. as S.M., M.A. as A.M., and their B.S. as S.B. We generally don't reflect this for the sake of readability. B.A. as Bachelor of Arts is just fine. GuardianH (talk) 21:30, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GuardianH, I wanted to ask how you deal with unfounded or erroneous comments on your talk page. I noticed that you deleted one recently (I agreed completely with that decision). Do you feel obliged to archive stuff from your talk page? Then there is the "junk mail" one gets from time to time; hardly anyone could argue for archiving that, or what do you say? Thx. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 11:00, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're allowed a great deal of free reign over your talk page. I think there's some editors out there who have never even archived their talk page before; my understanding is that you aren't compelled to do so. It's more of a voluntary cleanup/organization task from time to time. As for comments, I try to respond to them even if they are misguided, so as to see if there is a common ground. GuardianH (talk) 21:25, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey GuardianH, I stumbled upon your user page a short while ago — forgive me if it sounds weird, but I think all the stuff you’ve done is just incredible. I was also an Asian-American high schooler from Massachusetts just a short while ago (played a bit of jazz at NEC and All States here too, might be doxxing myself idk lol, maybe I know you?) and I’ve always really liked history (not as rigorous as you, I think) but most of my edits are just me carrying over DOY stuff from other language DOY pages (like Japanese or Chinese) because I don’t feel like I have enough time in college to pore over academic texts. I’d love to hear what your reading/writing process is for Wikipedia as a presumably busy student so I can do more (right now I feel more like I’m filling holes as I see them instead of spending time researching topics and making new pages about them).

P.S. Also, if you end up attending Harvard or MIT I’d love to meet up sometime 😎 Marcustcii (talk) 14:47, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcustcii Thank you for your kind words. I always wanted to be a historian when I was a kid, and the field I wanted to specialize in was Byzantine history and become a medievalist based off of the stuff I read from Herrin, Goffart, Ostrogorsky, Kazhdan, and other authors of the Oxford tradition. I think that's largely what has informed my writing the most; my personal bias is that the writing style then was so much more elegant that it is now. So I try to replicate their stylistic approach in summary as much as possible, and I think after you get at it for a long time it enters your subconscious. Same goes for research — you develop an eye and taste for content.

I've shifted a little now. I think it would be very difficult to sustain a lifestyle as a medievalist in the academic field now, which is a terrible shame; my personal sympathies to the field remain, although I've transitioned towards constitutional law and all the great figures which have molded that discipline — Scalia, Hand, and the like. It's so similar to medieval history, in a way. I'm laboring away on Henry Friendly (a personal hero of mine) right now. I don't know if looking at it would get my reading/writing process (I'm a terribly messy thinker as evidenced by the log), but, if I were to guess, that would be the page to look at.

I think all the stuff you’ve done is just incredible – I think you are giving me too much credit! I get into a terrible cycle with articles: after some inspiration all I can do for a few days is work on them, become disillusioned, and the writing is actually quite a disappointment. I end up abandoning a lot altogether, leaving their corpses behind (Malone, White, Rand, and countless other casualties). I'd be willing to speak about my process if you're still interested, but I think there really are much better writers than myself on here that could offer greater insight. GuardianH (talk) 19:18, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GuardianH! I have a little question: Can I set parameters somewhere to exclude bot changes from my watchlist? -- Melchior2006 (talk) 12:55, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Melchior2006 I believe so. I think if you go to Preferences > Watchlist (tab) > Changes shown. GuardianH (talk) 12:56, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

gotcha! That was easy. Thanks for your help. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 13:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On 30 January 2024, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Charles Fried, which you nominated and updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. PFHLai (talk) 22:29, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In your recent edits to the article for Millburn High School, among the material you deleted as "excessive" or "excessive and promotional" is being as "second-best public school in the country", having a group of students being honored by NASA and having "highest SAT scores of any non-magnet public school in the state". Why did you remove these items, rearranging the article to make it almost impossible to identify the changes? What about these items is "excessive" and / or "promotional"? Alansohn (talk) 13:09, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A common problem with the page — and others like it, definitely some other ones in NJ — is that they go unchecked for a while and rack up with unsourced or poorly sourced boosterism by WP:SPAs intended to showcase the school. Same issues here – in particular that the section like "awards" or "athletics" just becomes a huge WP:SOAPBOX of WP:PROMOTION. The athletics section for the page is one massive laundry list of WP:UNDUE tournaments and other events. Anyways:

Known primarily for its consistently strong boys' and girls' tennis and fencing teams, Millburn has been a regular contender for state titles in these sports.

The Millburn baseball program has a history as a strong competitor in their conference and section.

Millburn has a wide offering of AP (Advanced Placement) courses, including: (with grade normally taken in) English Language (11th grade), English Literature (12th grade), Calculus AB and BC (12th grade), Computer Science (10/11/12th grade), Statistics (11/12th grade), Music Theory (10/11/12th grade), Studio Art I & II (10/11/12th grade), Spanish Language (11/12th grade), Spanish Literature (12th grade), French Language (11th/12th grade), Latin Virgil (12th grade), Chinese Language (12th grade), United States History (11th grade), European History (10th grade), Art History (11/12th grade)....

Millburn has a nationally regarded forensics team, which placed fifth in the National Debate Rankings during the 2005–06 school year. It is especially known for its strong and competitive Lincoln-Douglas debate, Public Forum Debate, Congressional Debate, Extemporaneous Speaking and Speech (Interpretation and Oratory) teams.

Millburn's Key Club is one of the largest clubs in the school, with over 160 registered members. At the New Jersey District Convention for Key Club, Millburn won the gold medal for UNICEF (raising $3,700), as well as gold for the Platinum Single Service Award (Haiti Relief Fund effort - $15,000+).

While Millburn High School has become nationally known for its academic rigor, the school has also made national news for other less positive reasons.

This one is pretty funny, actually.

Schooldigger.com ranked the school tied for 31st out of 381 public high schools statewide in its 2011 rankings (a decrease of 9 positions from the 2010 ranking) which were based on the combined percentage of students classified as proficient or above proficient on the mathematics (93.5%) and language arts literacy (98.5%) components of the High School Proficiency Assessment (HSPA).

This ranking is absolutely not notable. It looks like a WP:BLOG.

GuardianH (talk) 15:46, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to ask about when tournaments and other events are not just "one massive laundry list of WP:UNDUE." They all seems pretty irrelevant to me. Where to draw the line? Do you have any criteria I could use before deleting? -- Melchior2006 (talk) 19:58, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Melchior2006 Basic factual statements like there is a [x] team or [x] club. There can be some leeway to this of course — i.e., Amador Valley High School — but certainly nothing like "[x] problem is one of the most highly regarded" or "the school has a strong [x] department". Also WP:LAUNDRYLISTs should be condensed; the athletics section shouldn't be one big WP:PROMOTION of [x] championships. GuardianH (talk) 23:48, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But GuardianH that's not what you deleted. What you deleted was relevant sourced material. Alansohn (talk) 20:13, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You could make a case for the SAT statement but everything else removed was pretty standard boosterism which is neither relevant nor due for inclusion. GuardianH (talk) 23:45, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just stop editing British biographies. You refuse to take advice. Changing * [[Trinity College, Cambridge]] * [[Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge|Faculty of Law]], [[University of Cambridge]] to * [[University of Cambridge]] is again incorrect. You clearly have no desire to learn, despite multiple editors trying. This is your final [soft] warning as you just don't get it. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 19:00, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gaia Octavia Agrippa It's a MOS:EGG and MOS:OVERLINK. Actually, you've been the only one who had raised this so far. Fixing redundant links doesn't mean the user has to stop editing British biographies — as if only American biographies are okay to fix? GuardianH (talk) 20:09, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No the above example is not MOS:EGG or MOS:OVERLINK.

Looking above and at your talk page history, User:Special-T has picked you up on American degree abbreviations (this has been mentioned before); User:Johnbod has agreed with me here; you've been picked up for errors to a German article although you actually chose to engage with that. You did not engage with me here, here or here.

I'm not going to go through your edits to see which have been reverted or otherwise corrected after you have swept through.

Your incompetence relating to British academia is clear, your errors have been pointed out (and those relating to American academic post-nominals) and yet you plough on regardless. So, stop, breath, educate yourself and continue correctly or stop editing British biographies. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 21:05, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gaia Octavia Agrippa There's been articles with both condensation and no condensation here. Your assumption is that there's a consensus for keeping them separate, but I've only been aware of a broad consensus for listing colleges under a person's education, not their institutional affiliation. Listing every college under institutions gives redundancies, especially when they are under the same institution (University of Cambridge, University of Oxford). I.e., we condense an academic at Harvard Law School or Harvard Business School to just Harvard University. GuardianH (talk) 21:19, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gaia Octavia Agrippa To clarify, it looks like University of Oxford for a person's institutional affiliation is acceptable. Given an apparent lack of consensus, it may be something more appropriate for an RfC for the article. GuardianH (talk) 21:32, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, for Oxford, Cambridge and London universities, all essentially bands of affiliated institutions, it is correct and usual to give the college or what ever London calls them, NOT the faculty nor the plain overall university. Believe it. Johnbod (talk) 03:31, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnbod Is there anything in policy that supports this? I have seen both the college name and the full institution (University of Oxford) in use for a scholar's institutional affiliation, and two things can be true at once here: that either is acceptable. Also, universities have seldom dictated policy on the site. I know Gaia pinged you so I think a RfC might be appropriate to avoid a WP:CANVASS, given that you've also disagreed with me in previous discussions. GuardianH (talk) 03:40, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We follow WP:RS here, and that is what they normally do. You obviously don't understand the British system at all, and just won't be told. There is ample consensus here - it's just you on the other side. Do a Rfc if you must - it will sink like a stone. I've no idea where "you've also disagreed with me in previous discussions", but I'm not at all surprized - you do far too many small fiddling edits, with too low quality control. Johnbod (talk) 03:56, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, this I suppose. Perhaps you should leave the UK alone. Johnbod (talk) 04:04, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnbod First of all, I think both of you are edging on WP:UNCIVIL here, both by belittling my perspective (WP:ICA) by assuming it to be that I'm uneducated and obstinate instead of that I'm pointing out that there is no policy justification or formal consensus established, like you mentioned. That by condensing it down to University of Oxford instead of having a list of all the constituent colleges amounts to stop editing British biographies and to stop, breath, educate yourself and continue correctly or stop editing British biographies.

Like I said, there are articles both naming the colleges and the institution as a whole (i.e., University of Oxford), and from the looks of it it seems both have been acceptable to editors. In other words, is there anything that grounds the listing of all the colleges in policy rather than just preference? GuardianH (talk) 04:10, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We follow WP:RS here, and that is what they normally do. — Which RS are you referencing? GuardianH (talk) 04:12, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly all of them! There are many FAs of people educated at these universities - find one where your formula has survived WP:FAC. Johnbod (talk) 04:16, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not talking about where they were educated, I'm saying that in regards to their institutional affiliation (i.e., infobox academic under 'institutions') there are articles with either the individual colleges listed and there are articles with just the university (i.e., just University of Oxford instead of [x] college, [y] college, [z] college). Do you see what I'm saying? GuardianH (talk) 04:22, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnbod I knew I saw it somewhere! Look at this. At the Featured article R. A. B. Mynors under 'institutions' it condenses Mynors positions at Pembroke College, Cambridge and Corpus Christi College, Oxford as just "Oxford University" and "Cambridge University". That's where I thought 'institutions' were/could be condensed. So, here's a FA that passed what I've been saying. I know I've seen others too like it. GuardianH (talk) 04:27, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, as we are saying, you don't understand the system. "...he read Literae Humaniores at Balliol College, Oxford, and spent the early years of his career as a Fellow of that college. He was Kennedy Professor of Latin at Cambridge from 1944 to 1953 and Corpus Christi Professor of Latin at Oxford from 1953 until his retirement in 1970." Professorships are university positions, though a fellowship to a college is attached. Students and fellows belong to a college. Want to try again? Johnbod (talk) 04:36, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnbod Mynors was both. "He was elected to a fellowship at Balliol and became a tutor in Classics." + "He also became a fellow of Pembroke College." So, by what you're saying, it should be:

Institutions: Balliol College, Oxford (fellow); Pembroke College, Oxford (fellow); and Oxford University (prof.), Cambridge University (prof).

But that's not it. It's condensed into just Oxford University and Cambridge University. GuardianH (talk) 04:45, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SIDENOTE: And I found another one. The featured article for Niels Bohr — who had been based at Trinity College, Cambridge (it seems that he was a fellow) — passed FAC (2013) with the institution just being "University of Cambridge". GuardianH (talk) 05:43, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SIDENOTE, again: And...another one — not just that, but one that passed FAC recently (August 2023) and, even more, was TFA. Featured article Howard Florey. Flowey was a fellow at Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge; he was also a fellow at Lincoln College, Oxford, and would assume more positions at Oxford. But what's under institutions? Just "University of Oxford" and "University of Cambridge". GuardianH (talk) 05:49, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnbod You've been editing after this discussion. Maybe you didn't see my responses? Yes? GuardianH (talk) 19:34, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, but you don't get to take over my life. I've being doing more useful stuff, but will return to this in my own good time. Johnbod (talk) 04:09, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnbod So just now you're busy? It seems you've been more than happy to engage in this discussion previously. But now that I've provided the FAs that show editors have accepted University of Oxford and University of Cambridge under institutions, now you need to take the time to think? There's some irony to this. I take it you will respond in the near future. GuardianH (talk) 04:22, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's 5 in the morning here, & I'm going to bed. There you are. Johnbod (talk) 04:55, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can only say for you to sleep tight. Like I said, I take it you will address it in the near future. GuardianH (talk) 05:00, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod It's been a couple of days now. Since that time you've been participating in a few other discussions; I don't really see much point in prolonging this one on your end. It's due for a response (when you're not editing at 5 in the morning?). GuardianH (talk) 17:20, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, I have been busy in real life and continue to be so this is a flying visit. This highlights the difference between Oxford colleges and the University of Oxford: Academic College job are offered by individual Oxford Colleges, each of which is an independent employer with its own terms and conditions of employment which are different from the University terms and conditions and The appointment of an Associate Professor is a joint exercise of two employers: the college and the faculty/department.. The same applies to Cambridge colleges. While in the modern age teaching is shared between colleges and the university, its still the teaching by the colleges that is the central aspect; undergraduates are admitted to a college not to the university. While it is common now for lecturers to hold both a university teaching post (in a faculty/department) and a college fellowship this was not always the case: this is still two posts in two different institutions. In the past, it was common for fellows to not hold a university post, and is still possible today. This is especially true of early female academics who were employed solely by a college due to contemporary sexism (eg Maude Clarke), and more recent example would be Nan Dunbar (died 2005), so it is simply incorrect to simplify things to just "University of Oxford". It is fully possible that someone has been purely educated by their college and their only contact with the university is sitting the same exams as set by the university alongside people from different college. This is also why the college is given as an alma mater rather than Oxford/Cambridge University.

On the other hand, the colleges of Durham University are not teaching institutions (except for St John's College, Durham which has a seminary and (historically) St Chad's College, Durham). The colleges of the University of York and Lancaster University are residential and therefore don't meet the Oxbridge standard.

Similarly, but on a much larger scale, the University of London is a federal university with multiple member institutions. The teaching and admission applies to these rather than the UoL and as such its the London School of Economics or the Institute of Classical Studies that is the alma mater or employment institution. As I've said before, it would be like putting University of California instead of University of California, Berkeley and University of California, Los Angeles. Someone can concurrently hold positions at different UoL institutions or move consecutively: it would be incorrect to reduce this to "University of London".

Why are you so certain your interpretation of the complicated mess that is British higher education is correct? Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 17:58, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gaia Octavia Agrippa, my point has been what has been acceptable to editors regarding the British higher education system, and that condensation has been accepted. You've provided ample evidence that the colleges are autonomous from the university, but none of what you've said shows a consensus among editors to always name separate colleges under a subject's institutional affiliation. There's been at least four FAs that have condensed a person's institutional affiliation to just University of Oxford/University of Cambridge regardless of their fellowships or professorships at different colleges, and those have all passed FAC. Like I said, both condensation and no condensation has been accepted, rather than only no condensation. GuardianH (talk) 18:13, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnbod It's been long enough — multiple weeks have passed now. See the FAs I mentioned, and maybe you could give a response. GuardianH (talk) 22:17, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Frederick Banting, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Battle of Cambrai.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive
March 2024 Backlog Drive: On 1 March, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here or ask questions here.
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year.

(t · c) buidhe 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GuardianH, what an impressive userpage you've got- you must have a very broad reading list with the topic interests you display and have made contributions to.

I want to thank you not only for your "thanks" on my recent edits (boy howdy, removing that Stossel LISTSPAM was actually quite a feat on the mobile app, which I learned doesn't scroll when you "drag-highlight," lol. I was in too deep to give up, though), but for all the work you do here. As I just posted on ElKevbo's page, the one positive for me in bumping into the disruptive editing from Summerdays1 has been uncovering contributors like yourselves, who are protecting the encyclopedia from sometimes-subtle BOOSTERISM in areas with higher-than-usual "drive-by" edits. You are awesome, and your tireless work is appreciated.

I am a habitual copyeditor (I find it so relaxing, which I recognize might be weird lol) so if you ever come across articles which need text clean-up or just review, and don't have the time or inclination yourself, feel free to tag me in to have a look! Thanks again and happy editing :-D ~Chelsea aka Chiselinccc (talk) 17:22, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words. Copyeditors like you are what keeps articles running for years. GuardianH (talk) 17:29, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep a count on the number of reverts that you are doing to the article on the University of East Anglia. I have reached my limit.-- Toddy1 (talk) 16:15, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]