Talk:Kaskaskia College

Proposed additions & updates

Hello. I want to open a discussion about the additions that were recently reverted, and I appreciate the pointer to do so here rather than continue reverting.

I should disclose upfront that I work at Kaskaskia College, which means I have a conflict of interest under Wikipedia's guidelines. I'm aware that COI editors are expected to propose changes rather than impose them, and I'm happy to operate that way going forward.

The additions I made were drawn entirely from third-party sources -- local and regional news outlets, Moody's Ratings coverage, an accreditation body, and a construction firm's project documentation -- rather than from the college's own website. They included a Moody's bond rating upgrade, a new competition gymnasium, an academic partnership with Southern Illinois University Carbondale, faculty and institutional awards, and a campus modernization program. I can provide the full source list if that would help your review.

I'm not trying to use Wikipedia as a promotional platform. The article as it stood was thin and in some places outdated, and I was trying to bring it closer to what a reader looking up the college would reasonably expect to find. I'm genuinely open to your feedback on what belongs and what doesn't. Geeokay (talk) 14:07, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate you opening this discussion and disclosing your COI. But I'm very confused that you say that you want to talk through this with other editors "rather than continue reverting" but you only said after you reverted the article to your preferred version, for the second time. It would be easier to assume your good faith and have a productive discussion if you were to self-revert your most recent edit.

Additionally, please keep in mind that the Wikimedia Foundation requires that all paid editing be disclosed. If you receive or expect to receive compensation (money, goods or services) for your contributions to Wikipedia, the policy on the English Wikipedia is:

• you must disclose who is paying you, on whose behalf the edits are made, and any other relevant affiliation;
• you should make the disclosure on your user page, on affected talk pages, and whenever you discuss the topic;
• you are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly;
• you may propose changes on talk pages by using the {{edit COI}} template, so that they can be peer-reviewed;
• you should put new articles through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process instead of creating them directly;
• you must not act as a reviewer of affected article(s) at AfC, new pages patrol or elsewhere;
• you should respect volunteers by keeping discussions concise (see WP:PAYTALK).

Regardless of whether you are being paid, you are discouraged from making substantive edits to an article with which you have a financial conflict-of-interest and that definitely includes articles about your employer.

Finally, I (again) strongly recommend that you not make such large edits to an article because it's difficult for other editors to understand exactly what you've done and why. Smaller edits accompanied by clear, explicit edit summaries are much easier for others to understand and, if necessary, discuss. ElKevbo (talk) 22:39, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the detailed response, @ElKevbo. I want to address your points directly.

You are correct that I reverted to my preferred version before opening this discussion. That was the wrong order of operations and I apologize for it. I should have self-reverted first and I understand why that undermined the good faith I was trying to demonstrate.

On the paid editing disclosure: I am not compensated for contributions to Wikipedia. My COI is affiliation only -- I work at Kaskaskia College. I will add the appropriate disclosure to my user page.

I take yourpont about edit size. I will use the {{edit_COI}} template to propose changes one section at a time so they can be properly reviewed.

I understand the process now and will follow it going forward. Geeokay (talk) 15:08, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Geeokay Thank you for disclosing your conflict of interest. However, it is disappointing that while you have said here "I should have self-reverted" and apologised for not doing so you still did not self-revert your editing. I have reverted your changes to the article because that is the correct starting point for any further discussion. As ElKevbo has said above, it is much easier for neutral editors to review if your requests are made as smaller requests one at a time, specifically pointing out what is incorrect or missing from the article and providing reliable, independent sources for any proposed changes or additions. You can most easily do this using the Wikipedia:Edit Request Wizard. I would also ask you to carefully review WP:PAID, noting that Users who are (or who expect to be) compensated for any publicity efforts related to the subject of their Wikipedia contributions are deemed to be paid editors, regardless of whether they were compensated specifically to edit Wikipedia. If this applies to you, you should adjust your disclosure to note that you are a paid editor under wikipedia's definition. Thank you Melcous (talk) 21:13, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, Melcous. I apologize for not following through on the self-revert, that was an oversight, not an intentional slight, and I appreciate you completing it.

On the paid editing question, I want to be precise. I am not compensated to edit Wikipedia, nor has anyone at Kaskaskia College asked or directed me to do so. I am doing this on my own initiative because the article contains information that is several years out of date, and I have access to well-sourced material to correct it. I have reviewed WP:PAID and do not believe it applies to my situation, but I am disclosing my employment affiliation fully and will continue to do so.

I will use the Edit Request Wizard going forward and will submit proposed changes one at a time with sources. I appreciate your patience with a new editor learning the process. Geeokay (talk) 21:40, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Edit request -- Financial standing section

I am proposing the addition of a new "Financial standing" section after the "Leadership" section with the following text:

In October 2025, Moody's Ratings upgraded Kaskaskia College's General Obligation Unlimited Tax bond rating from A1 to Aa3, placing the college among the nation's highest-rated community colleges. Moody's cited the district's sustained financial improvement, strong reserves, moderate debt level, and consistent tax base growth as contributing factors.

Source: WGEL, October 22, 2025. https://wgel.com/news/2025/10/moodys-upgrades-kc-credit-rating-to-aa3/ Geeokay (talk) 21:43, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm going to leave this request open so that another editor can weigh in but I don't think that this merits inclusion in this article. I think that only historically significant changes to an institution's finances should be included in an article. We're trying to cover the entire history, organization, resources, accomplishments, and challenges of the institution so we must be selective about what is included. ElKevbo (talk) 21:28, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

new gymnasium

Please add the following to the end of the Athletics section:

In February 2026, the college opened a new competition gymnasium, increasing seating capacity from about 850 to 1,350. The court was named Bill Hawley Court in honor of the longtime chair of the college's Board of Trustees.

Reason: The Athletics section does not reflect the college's current athletic facility. Both sources are independent local news coverage.

References

Geeokay (talk) 21:47, 27 September 2026 (UTC)