This template is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation articles
Template-protected edit request on 12 October 2017
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Delete the paragraph about biographies; there was no discussion whatsoever in the article's Talk page to establish this "policy" and it's a misapplication of WP:BIO anyway since that explicitly only applies to article topics and not content in articles. It's unseemly that an editor with the template-editor permission used that permission to unilaterally impose this on other editors. ElKevbo (talk) 21:20, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You unilaterally decided what content can and cannot be added to this article. You didn't consult anyone and you used your template-editor permission to add this dictate to a template that few editors can edit. ElKevbo (talk) 00:23, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Where was this discussed? I see where an editor added this to the article which itself is objectionable but at least there it's in a place where other editors can make further edits. Where is the discussion to place these incorrect instructions in a template that few editors can edit? ElKevbo (talk) 09:57, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So we're all on the same page: You used your template-editor permissions to create an edit notice for this article that had no discussion and is contrary to the guideline that is cited as the primary justification. Are you now refusing to undo this edit and discuss the issue? ElKevbo (talk) 05:18, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, per the beginning of WP:BIO: "Notability criteria may need to be met for a person to be included in a standalone list article." Again, I'm not seeing the problem here. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯22:24, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. The edit notice has been unchanged since February 2017, and there are at least three editors who have in some way supported the text that is currently in the edit notice. Primefac (talk) 02:16, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac, let me see if I understand this correctly: An editor with the template-editor permission is permitted to create an edit notice without any discussion even after another editor has raised an objection that the edit notice explicitly misuses the guideline on which it is based. Is that correct?
This entire incident seems to be completely contrary to the instructions at Wikipedia:Template editor, specifically the admonition that:
"This right should never be used to gain an upper hand in editing disputes. You have a privilege that most people do not have. The normal BOLD, revert, discuss cycle does not apply because those without this right are unable to perform the 'revert' step. Therefore, if your edit is or may be controversial...avoid making unilateral decisions, and instead propose the change on the template's talk page, and then make the change if there are no objections after a few days."
@ElKevbo: It's not because this edit notice was not made as part of a dispute. You requested a change and several others thought that the change you suggested was not an improvement. You don't have a compelling argument. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯06:38, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is a dispute: You created this edit notice without any discussion and now you refuse to discuss it. You're abusing your template editor privileges. ElKevbo (talk) 06:59, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@ElKevbo: Yes and then other editors chimed in and thought that it should remain. You've had time to make your case and no one finds it persuasive. Evidently, you want unreferenced lists of trivia added to this article and no one thinks it's a good idea. Also, no one feels like I've done something that abuses my user rights other than you. If you have nothing new to add, then please move on. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯08:28, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your insightful analysis of the tens of thousands of edits I've made to college and university articles. It's matched by your insight into the appropriate uses of the template editor privileges and WP:BIO. But it's clear that other editors have no interest in holding you accountable for your actions so I will indeed move on. ElKevbo (talk) 14:55, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've also removed this college from my watchlist; you might want to add it to yours to help revert vandalism and unhelpful edits. ElKevbo (talk) 15:00, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I also think the text in the edit notice is fine. It is true that content in an article does not generally have to satisfy WP:BIO (Notability (people) guideline), but for College of Saint Benedict and Saint John's University it is very reasonable to require that "notable alumni" additions are for notable and verified cases. Where the article exists, notability/verification can be assumed or at least kicked down the road to the linked article, but if there is no article, WP:WTAF applies. Johnuniq (talk) 09:12, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why we have sitewide policies like WP:BIO and WP:Template editor if we're just allowed to ignore them whenever it's convenient. Please propose the appropriate modifications to those policies or propose them for deletion if we're just going to ignore them. ElKevbo (talk) 14:58, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@ElKevbo: You need to chill out. You made your case, no one buys it. If you want to post to appropriate WikiProjects to solicit feedback, go for it—maybe someone else will have a fresh perspective. No one else thinks that there is a problem here. If you think there's some violation of a policy, then post to the appropriate place for that but I don't think you'll find anyone agreeing with you there either. I won't be watching this page and using the fact that you won't be as some kind of petty revanchism is frankly juvenile at best. If you want more discussion on this, that's fine, just don't act like a petulant child when everyone else thinks you're wrong. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯19:19, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Template-protected edit request on 3 November 2024
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the 