This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
The Washington Monthly rankings in the "Campuses and rankings" section don't seem to match the actual numbers in the cited page ( http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/college_guide/rankings_2010/national_university_rank.php). Could someone check this? It seems that Irvine, Davis, Riverside, Santa Barbara and Santa Cruz Washington Monthly rankings are incorrect. 67.124.89.241 ( talk) 03:32, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
The average SAT scores listed are from all accepted applicants of each the campuses and not the averages of enrolled freshmen. I don't think this is an accurate measure since not all accepted applicants, of say UC Riverside, ended up going there. Many of them probably had it as their safety and ended up going to UCLA, Berkeley or Irvine. Similarly, many applicants to Berkeley may have ended going to Harvard or Stanford. This measure is very misleading. Most campuses list average SAT scores of enrolled freshmen and they are consistently about 50 points lower than ones currently listed. I will be updating with these figures as I can find them from each of the campuses.-- Seaprt ( talk) 07:13, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately, from what i've seen, you haven't been able to give the writing score for UCSD, leaving a huge gap in the way you've listed things. I'm reverting back to the old method until you can find, and cite, the writing score for UCSD. Xenfreak ( talk) 02:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
also, it seems, you missed the the heading for the section which is "freshman ADMISSION profiles fall 2011" and not freshman enrolled. Xenfreak ( talk) 02:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
A lot of people don't seem to understand that when one uses initials, like UC, UCSD, UCSF, etc., the definite article is not used. That is, it's not "the UC," it's just UC. However, if UC is used as an adjective to a noun that takes a definite article, then the article must be used. Hence, "the UC system" or "the UC Regents." This is not rocket science, people. -- Coolcaesar ( talk) 07:58, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Shouldn't it be updated with the 2013 numbers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.187.167.234 ( talk) 04:02, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
This section is a pathetic mess. 17 citations for one statement is ridiculous. Even if they're all links to relevant web pages (they're not) it's nearly impossible to tell which particular link verifies which data point (they should go in the cell whose data they're verifying). Furthermore, are the ACT/SAT/GPA numbers means, medians or something else? I tried to figure it out for myself but I don't have the time to dig through 17 citations to find which one I need. This section is an embarrassment and editors of this page should fix it posthaste. 67.164.156.42 ( talk) 07:41, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
What I might suggest, however, is adding an extra column in the table, like how we see in the California State University admissions table, for each campus and we can divide the citations that way.
Would it be too much to ask to add the Berkeley link back to the top of the page??
Because the above is indeed true (the Berkeley campus was the University of California and is still often referred to as such by many people), and Berkeley's athletics and student groups still go by this name ( [University of] California Golden Bears, University of California Marching Band, University of California Rally Committee, etc) I believe restoring the above link would help alleviate confusion. -- CASportsFan ( talk) 19:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I still believe that the hatlink to UCB is appropriate, but it might be that text other than "Not to be confused with its formerly synonymous first campus..." would be better. Perhaps something like "Historical and casual references to UC or U of C might be referring to UCB."
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
University of California. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 20:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
An editor is insisting that information asserting that UC institutions have reputations for poor customer service remain in this article. I object because the only sources cited for the information are from 2001 and 1990 so this information is at best poorly sourced and at worst woefully outdated (and may be overstated, too, since only two sources are cited).
It's even more problematic now that the same editor has added a 2011 article describing relatively low rates of alumni donations with the editor - not the source - connecting the lower rates of giving to the perceptions of poor customer service. This is not only original research it's very poorly conducted original research since it an article from 1990 and an article from 2001 to explain behavior in 2011.
The assertions may be true but they're very, very poorly sourced. The material must be removed unless additional sources can be found that are more timely and speak directly to these issues. ElKevbo ( talk) 22:15, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on University of California. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 02:07, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
The article says "UC researchers and faculty are responsible for 1,745 inventions, which have led to the creation of 934 startups, and UC currently controls over 12,200 active patents" -> could you please create a new section or article for a list of these inventions? For this also see the lists of other Universities' (researchers') discoveries and inventions at Category:Lists of inventions or discoveries.
-- Fixuture ( talk) 13:02, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on University of California. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:52, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Currently reads: "As of 2016, UC researchers and faculty are responsible for 1,745 inventions, which have led to the creation of 934 startups, and UC controls over 12,200 active patents. On average, UC researchers create five new inventions per day."
The source ( https://web.archive.org/web/20161111062209/http://universityofcalifornia.edu/sites/default/files/uc-at-a-glance-oct-2016.pdf) is a little ambiguous, but seems to suggest 1,745 inventions in 2016, not 1,745 inventions total.
Mayawagon ( talk) 14:30, 28 November 2018 (UTC) mayawagon
I updated this in the article Mayawagon ( talk) 19:28, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
The following is brochure language:
... responsible for nearly US$50 billion per year of economic impact.
And the problem here is that I don't even know what it means. Revenues? Probably not, because a large chunk of the funding is probably public sector and donations. Total expenditures? Perhaps. Total expenditures plus endowment revenues? That would be a ridiculous aggregate, but unfortunately, both of those sub-terms are impact-ish in the eyes of your average PR department (even at an august university, where they ought to know better).
So how about an encyclopedic figure that naturally translates to something people directly comprehend? — MaxEnt 16:44, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
I am objecting to this paragraph:
The University of California was founded on March 23, 1868, and operated temporarily in Oakland before moving to its new campus in Berkeley in 1873.[5][6] In March 1951, the University of California began its reorganization, and in 1952 it became separated as a "university system" from the University of California, Berkeley, with Robert Gordon Sproul being the first system-wide President and Clark Kerr being the first Chancellor of UC Berkeley. [7][8][9][10][11]
Whomever wrote this has not actually read the first volume of Clark Kerr's memoir The Blue and the Gold in full. Kerr is very clear in his memoirs that the 1951 reorganization plan was an incoherent train wreck that left him and Raymond Allen (first chancellor of UCLA) in an extremely awkward position because of how President Sproul and the northern Regents were reluctant to surrender power to the chancellors. The compromise that they fumbled towards was that Allen ended up with some autonomy at UCLA but Kerr was essentially a glorified provost at Berkeley while Sproul and his allies retained control of the business side of most of the university. It was not until Kerr finally became President that he was able to coax the Regents towards implementing true decentralization from 1957 to 1960, in which Berkeley finally stopped micromanaging UCLA and the other off-site locations and most chains of command were rerouted downwards to the chancellors and away from the President. Thus, it is grossly inaccurate to characterize the university as becoming a university system in 1952, when Kerr, the person most responsible for UC's decentralization, was careful to characterize it as happening from 1957 to 1960. That entire paragraph needs to be pulled out until I can get to a library and get the page cites for that information. (I read Kerr's book many years ago but I can only see about 30 pages from it on Google Books.) -- Coolcaesar ( talk) 04:39, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
These may need to be updated, or accompanied by some clarification about the disparity between scale salary bands vs. actual compensation levels. From firsthand experience, my SO (married, I do our taxes) was paid just under $115,000 in their first year at one of the less prestigious UC campuses, with no signing bonus - just straight salary. The point of this anecdotal story is not that it's worthy of being a source datapoint (it's not), but that it seems to be fairly common. Look up the actual pay of UC faculty (easy to do, it's all on public record) and you will find find many professors' compensation is well above the salary bands listed in the table for their year and position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:5171:170:D833:8361:2BC5:72AD ( talk) 18:55, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
The paragraph on Hastings College of the Law and Toland Medical College is a grossly inaccurate mess that needs to be revised and supported with citations to reliable sources. When I have the time, I am proposing to revise the paragraph so it accurately discusses Section 8 of the Organic Act and then explains how efforts to implement that section went awry in various ways, resulting in the messy situation today with UC Hastings College of the Law and UCSF operating independently of each other in the same city. (Although Hastings does contract with UCSF to borrow certain services like UC Police.) -- Coolcaesar ( talk) 21:12, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm planning to pull that out because this article is way too long as is. We should be focusing on what became the UC system today, not properties that wandered in and out. -- Coolcaesar ( talk) 17:44, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
The individual UC's in the UC system are universities in their own right and should NOT be called "campuses" - a "campus" is merely a physical location, and while every UC does of course have main campus (and several of them have more than one campus! so how can a campus have campuses? e.g., the Davis campus's Sacramento campus - this makes no sense!). This is a fairly large mistake, and I suspect it has something to do with the UC system being often referred to as the "university of california", so this has led to outside scholars or journalists assuming it to be one university rather than a system of many universities. Firejuggler86 ( talk) 02:28, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
User:Filetime changed almost all the campus images in the article on 17 July 2021.
The only changes that were clearly an improvement are the photos for UCLA, Merced, and Riverside. The other new photos are worse than what they replaced. I'm wondering if Filetime has visited any UC campuses. (I have visited all 10 campuses in person, plus Hastings.)
Here is what is wrong with the new photos:
Any objections before I revert Berkeley, Davis, Irvine, Santa Barbara and Santa Cruz back to the old photos? -- Coolcaesar ( talk) 16:54, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2021 and 17 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): TruthWithin&LightWithout.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 12:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
The Washington Monthly rankings in the "Campuses and rankings" section don't seem to match the actual numbers in the cited page ( http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/college_guide/rankings_2010/national_university_rank.php). Could someone check this? It seems that Irvine, Davis, Riverside, Santa Barbara and Santa Cruz Washington Monthly rankings are incorrect. 67.124.89.241 ( talk) 03:32, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
The average SAT scores listed are from all accepted applicants of each the campuses and not the averages of enrolled freshmen. I don't think this is an accurate measure since not all accepted applicants, of say UC Riverside, ended up going there. Many of them probably had it as their safety and ended up going to UCLA, Berkeley or Irvine. Similarly, many applicants to Berkeley may have ended going to Harvard or Stanford. This measure is very misleading. Most campuses list average SAT scores of enrolled freshmen and they are consistently about 50 points lower than ones currently listed. I will be updating with these figures as I can find them from each of the campuses.-- Seaprt ( talk) 07:13, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately, from what i've seen, you haven't been able to give the writing score for UCSD, leaving a huge gap in the way you've listed things. I'm reverting back to the old method until you can find, and cite, the writing score for UCSD. Xenfreak ( talk) 02:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
also, it seems, you missed the the heading for the section which is "freshman ADMISSION profiles fall 2011" and not freshman enrolled. Xenfreak ( talk) 02:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
A lot of people don't seem to understand that when one uses initials, like UC, UCSD, UCSF, etc., the definite article is not used. That is, it's not "the UC," it's just UC. However, if UC is used as an adjective to a noun that takes a definite article, then the article must be used. Hence, "the UC system" or "the UC Regents." This is not rocket science, people. -- Coolcaesar ( talk) 07:58, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Shouldn't it be updated with the 2013 numbers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.187.167.234 ( talk) 04:02, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
This section is a pathetic mess. 17 citations for one statement is ridiculous. Even if they're all links to relevant web pages (they're not) it's nearly impossible to tell which particular link verifies which data point (they should go in the cell whose data they're verifying). Furthermore, are the ACT/SAT/GPA numbers means, medians or something else? I tried to figure it out for myself but I don't have the time to dig through 17 citations to find which one I need. This section is an embarrassment and editors of this page should fix it posthaste. 67.164.156.42 ( talk) 07:41, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
What I might suggest, however, is adding an extra column in the table, like how we see in the California State University admissions table, for each campus and we can divide the citations that way.
Would it be too much to ask to add the Berkeley link back to the top of the page??
Because the above is indeed true (the Berkeley campus was the University of California and is still often referred to as such by many people), and Berkeley's athletics and student groups still go by this name ( [University of] California Golden Bears, University of California Marching Band, University of California Rally Committee, etc) I believe restoring the above link would help alleviate confusion. -- CASportsFan ( talk) 19:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I still believe that the hatlink to UCB is appropriate, but it might be that text other than "Not to be confused with its formerly synonymous first campus..." would be better. Perhaps something like "Historical and casual references to UC or U of C might be referring to UCB."
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
University of California. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 20:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
An editor is insisting that information asserting that UC institutions have reputations for poor customer service remain in this article. I object because the only sources cited for the information are from 2001 and 1990 so this information is at best poorly sourced and at worst woefully outdated (and may be overstated, too, since only two sources are cited).
It's even more problematic now that the same editor has added a 2011 article describing relatively low rates of alumni donations with the editor - not the source - connecting the lower rates of giving to the perceptions of poor customer service. This is not only original research it's very poorly conducted original research since it an article from 1990 and an article from 2001 to explain behavior in 2011.
The assertions may be true but they're very, very poorly sourced. The material must be removed unless additional sources can be found that are more timely and speak directly to these issues. ElKevbo ( talk) 22:15, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on University of California. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 02:07, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
The article says "UC researchers and faculty are responsible for 1,745 inventions, which have led to the creation of 934 startups, and UC currently controls over 12,200 active patents" -> could you please create a new section or article for a list of these inventions? For this also see the lists of other Universities' (researchers') discoveries and inventions at Category:Lists of inventions or discoveries.
-- Fixuture ( talk) 13:02, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on University of California. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:52, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Currently reads: "As of 2016, UC researchers and faculty are responsible for 1,745 inventions, which have led to the creation of 934 startups, and UC controls over 12,200 active patents. On average, UC researchers create five new inventions per day."
The source ( https://web.archive.org/web/20161111062209/http://universityofcalifornia.edu/sites/default/files/uc-at-a-glance-oct-2016.pdf) is a little ambiguous, but seems to suggest 1,745 inventions in 2016, not 1,745 inventions total.
Mayawagon ( talk) 14:30, 28 November 2018 (UTC) mayawagon
I updated this in the article Mayawagon ( talk) 19:28, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
The following is brochure language:
... responsible for nearly US$50 billion per year of economic impact.
And the problem here is that I don't even know what it means. Revenues? Probably not, because a large chunk of the funding is probably public sector and donations. Total expenditures? Perhaps. Total expenditures plus endowment revenues? That would be a ridiculous aggregate, but unfortunately, both of those sub-terms are impact-ish in the eyes of your average PR department (even at an august university, where they ought to know better).
So how about an encyclopedic figure that naturally translates to something people directly comprehend? — MaxEnt 16:44, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
I am objecting to this paragraph:
The University of California was founded on March 23, 1868, and operated temporarily in Oakland before moving to its new campus in Berkeley in 1873.[5][6] In March 1951, the University of California began its reorganization, and in 1952 it became separated as a "university system" from the University of California, Berkeley, with Robert Gordon Sproul being the first system-wide President and Clark Kerr being the first Chancellor of UC Berkeley. [7][8][9][10][11]
Whomever wrote this has not actually read the first volume of Clark Kerr's memoir The Blue and the Gold in full. Kerr is very clear in his memoirs that the 1951 reorganization plan was an incoherent train wreck that left him and Raymond Allen (first chancellor of UCLA) in an extremely awkward position because of how President Sproul and the northern Regents were reluctant to surrender power to the chancellors. The compromise that they fumbled towards was that Allen ended up with some autonomy at UCLA but Kerr was essentially a glorified provost at Berkeley while Sproul and his allies retained control of the business side of most of the university. It was not until Kerr finally became President that he was able to coax the Regents towards implementing true decentralization from 1957 to 1960, in which Berkeley finally stopped micromanaging UCLA and the other off-site locations and most chains of command were rerouted downwards to the chancellors and away from the President. Thus, it is grossly inaccurate to characterize the university as becoming a university system in 1952, when Kerr, the person most responsible for UC's decentralization, was careful to characterize it as happening from 1957 to 1960. That entire paragraph needs to be pulled out until I can get to a library and get the page cites for that information. (I read Kerr's book many years ago but I can only see about 30 pages from it on Google Books.) -- Coolcaesar ( talk) 04:39, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
These may need to be updated, or accompanied by some clarification about the disparity between scale salary bands vs. actual compensation levels. From firsthand experience, my SO (married, I do our taxes) was paid just under $115,000 in their first year at one of the less prestigious UC campuses, with no signing bonus - just straight salary. The point of this anecdotal story is not that it's worthy of being a source datapoint (it's not), but that it seems to be fairly common. Look up the actual pay of UC faculty (easy to do, it's all on public record) and you will find find many professors' compensation is well above the salary bands listed in the table for their year and position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:5171:170:D833:8361:2BC5:72AD ( talk) 18:55, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
The paragraph on Hastings College of the Law and Toland Medical College is a grossly inaccurate mess that needs to be revised and supported with citations to reliable sources. When I have the time, I am proposing to revise the paragraph so it accurately discusses Section 8 of the Organic Act and then explains how efforts to implement that section went awry in various ways, resulting in the messy situation today with UC Hastings College of the Law and UCSF operating independently of each other in the same city. (Although Hastings does contract with UCSF to borrow certain services like UC Police.) -- Coolcaesar ( talk) 21:12, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm planning to pull that out because this article is way too long as is. We should be focusing on what became the UC system today, not properties that wandered in and out. -- Coolcaesar ( talk) 17:44, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
The individual UC's in the UC system are universities in their own right and should NOT be called "campuses" - a "campus" is merely a physical location, and while every UC does of course have main campus (and several of them have more than one campus! so how can a campus have campuses? e.g., the Davis campus's Sacramento campus - this makes no sense!). This is a fairly large mistake, and I suspect it has something to do with the UC system being often referred to as the "university of california", so this has led to outside scholars or journalists assuming it to be one university rather than a system of many universities. Firejuggler86 ( talk) 02:28, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
User:Filetime changed almost all the campus images in the article on 17 July 2021.
The only changes that were clearly an improvement are the photos for UCLA, Merced, and Riverside. The other new photos are worse than what they replaced. I'm wondering if Filetime has visited any UC campuses. (I have visited all 10 campuses in person, plus Hastings.)
Here is what is wrong with the new photos:
Any objections before I revert Berkeley, Davis, Irvine, Santa Barbara and Santa Cruz back to the old photos? -- Coolcaesar ( talk) 16:54, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2021 and 17 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): TruthWithin&LightWithout.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 12:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)