User talk:Bahooka/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. This is in regards to behavior related to User:Canstusdis not yours, but you were involved with.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 13:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

When I went to notify User:Canstusdis I noticed that User Adjwilley had already started an "Incidents" noticeboard page, here on this issue. So the one I made is redundant. I have moved my comments to That page. My apologies.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 13:36, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Why did you revert my change to Audi A5?

Why did you revert my change adding an external link to: http://carleasingmadesimple.com/business-car-leasing/audi/a5/kerb-weight

It contains very nice per model specifications hard to find otherwise. At least I didn't see a comparable one. I see you have pointed out WP:ELNO but I don't think any of these apply. I also see this is a site for offering car leasing but what can I do about that. I'm not involved in any way with them, I'm not in a country that can use their services. We can't ban any business web site just because it's business and they offer something. They have a good resource we use it. That's all.

Akostadi (talk) 16:46, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your question. That link is not acceptable under #5 as an "Individual web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services". The A5 specifications can be found on the official Audi website, so this car leasing site does add any value other than advertising for that leasing company. Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 16:54, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Amendments to content on 'Allard'

Please can you clarify why you feel the Trademark 'TM' should not be shown on Wikipedia, when it is legally owned by Allard Motor Cars Ltd, your continued deletion of my rightful annotation is not warranted or fair, and serves to confude rather clarify the legal position of this company? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.122.242.94 (talk) 21:06, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

As I've noted multiple times, please read WP:TRADEMARK. As this is an encyclopedia, that symbol is not used on Wikipedia. Thank you for discussing it, and if you start using edit summaries that would be helpful in understanding your edit. Further discussion of this topic is best addressed at Talk:Allard. Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 21:37, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Consolidate refs

Greetings, Bahooka! That's a neat bit of cleanup you did on Nick Turse. Looks like a more advanced level than I'm up to learning, but it's good to know the possibility exists. -- Cheers, Deborahjay (talk) 20:03, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. If you ever want to try it out, you can find the instructions at Help:Referencing for beginners#Same reference used more than once. Best, Bahooka (talk) 20:09, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Wowee, yes, I will do that, starting from THE beginning. Being a hacker at heart, I scoff at manuals (even though I've written my share), so I've gotten along by copying other editors' syntax in a haphazard but adequate manner. Now I humbly admit I'm willing to put the time into learning the props so I can move forward with confidence and get better-than-adequate results. -- Thanks again, Deborahjay (talk) 14:55, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Nick Turse

Thanks for your work on this article. Chisme (talk) 15:40, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Likewise. I'm mainly just doing some Wikignome stuff, but you are doing the heavy lifting in an article that clearly needs help. Cheers, Bahooka (talk) 15:48, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, although it's hard to do the heavy lifting when the things you lift keep getting knocked back to the ground... Chisme (talk) 19:35, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

AN/I

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:25, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

New to this

Thanks for reverting my changes bro, I was trying the editor out, then didnt know how to change it back! — Preceding unsigned comment added by PersonificationOfArrogance (talk • contribs) 23:19, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

What does your edit summary "See WP:RfC" mean?

Nothing there would seem to support your actions, so please explain your rationale.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:14, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I quoted WP:RFC which states that "Feel free to ask people not to add threaded replies to the survey section." I set up the RfC specifically with separate sections per the example in WP:RFC. If you want to discuss aspects of the RfC, it goes in the Threaded discussion area, not the Survey. Bahooka (talk) 16:17, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I have found that statement on the policy page under "Example", where it says "feel free to ask...". I'm not sure that means you have the right to impose the type of rigid format your are attempting to do, insofar as it proscribes direct response to a lengthy statement made in the survey section. Just because you have the right to "ask", doesn't mean you have the right to impose, and the reasons stated for adopting such a format are not applicable in the case of this RfC, which has a very low response rate. In fact, by moving my response to Gaijin to the "threaded discussion" section, you are making it more difficult for people to follow the discussion, not easier to read.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:26, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

We clearly disagree on process. A third party will have to determine if you can put comments wherever you want to on an RfC or if you should stick to the structure initially set up. Bahooka (talk) 16:29, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Inmate_parent

Given your response at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Inmate_parent, can you please comment and clarify that you understand the context of the clarification request.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:50, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. The additional info does not change my opinion that the incarceration status of the parent is not relevant to the subject of the article. Bahooka (talk) 19:54, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Comment requested

Since you are now actively editing, please participate at Talk:List of Los Angeles Unified School District people#Photos and Talk:List of Los Angeles Unified School District people#Edit warring; image. --Lexein (talk) 03:53, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I certainly don't agree with edit warring, but have no strong feelings one way or the other on including Farmar's image. What is well-known to one person may not be well-known for another. I had never heard of him, but he's notable enough for a WP article. The only way to include everyone's image is to change the format to a table. Unless you do that, the current formatting will require making decisions about whose image should stay and whose should go. Most lists I've seen like this include only the most well-known to the greatest number of people. I don't think that includes Farmar, but I may be wrong. Bahooka (talk) 04:00, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Errors and limitations in Car classification article

Hello, I am a journalist and I noticed some errors in this article, for example the Fiat 500 is NOT a supermini/subcompact car, but a 3 doors only CITY CAR that is 45cm shorter, 11cm less wide than a classical subcompact : the first Fiat 500 & the Mini were described as "micro-city-car" 40 years ago, known today as "city cars" : official segments for Fiat 500 is A0 and now the classic Mini is A1. Fiat 500 is definitely NOT in the same segment than Opel Corsa = subcompact.

There are several other mistakes, like "Citroen Type C" => ?? This old car of 1922 is not a city car anyway.

I noticed also, that only Ford, GM, Chrysler, Tata, VW & Japanese cars are mentioned, whereas for examples lignates like Mégane, Clio are SOLD AT 15 MILLIONS & 20 MILLIONS UNITS IN 80 COUNTRIES and so worth to be mentioned, as well as the other cars that I added. In dozens of countries in Europe, Africa, South America, Russia if you say "Clio" or "208" then people UNDERSTAND IMMEDIATELY WHAT IS THE MEANING OF THE SUBCOMPACT SEGMENT. The same for Citroen C4, Peugeot 308 and Renault Mégane, for the compact segment, sold from China to Germany, from Moroco to Russia. Etc. So not mentioning them is irrelevant.

The wikipedia articles in English have to be international and not only focused on some limited targets, don't you think so ?

I can make a long list of arguments, but as example the BBC "Top gear" magazine, shown worldwide elected the Citroën DS3 as best supermini and also awarded the DS5 etc. The Peugeot RCZ roadster that won the Pikes Peak race in 2013 as prototype is sold from Australia to Argentine etc. So not mentioning them is irrelevant.

Have a nice day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.157.24.224 (talk) 23:18, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

It looks like you are just adding a lot of French cars to the list. These lists are not supposed to be an exhaustive list of all autos in the classifications. You may want to discuss any article shortcomings at Talk:Car classification. Bahooka (talk) 23:25, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Chrysler 200

Don't anger me. 24.201.209.74 (talk) 06:32, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Bahooka (talk) 06:41, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

you're obviously getting this information from somewhere, please cite the source

Bit i already cite the sources, for exemple for 2002 SEMA Show i add 4 sources where i found this information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GENR12 (talk • contribs) 20:45, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

The way you've formatted it, only four vehicles appear to be referenced. If those references are for ALL the 2002 vehicles listed, then you should probably use the citation for each one, or cite the reference in a introductory sentence to the section. Bahooka (talk) 21:39, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

then you should probably use the citation for each one

Then be 100+ citations for each year of show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GENR12 (talk • contribs) 21:45, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Let me show you a trick to keep the citations under control. Check out the SEMA page in a little bit. Also, WP:Verifiability is a policy of Wikipedia, which is why we need to have references. Bahooka (talk) 21:52, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I started adding citations. As you can see in the references section, only one reference shows but the individual vehicles are all cited. See WP:CITE for more information. Hope this example helps and you can continue on. Bahooka (talk) 22:01, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for undoing my Paul Walker edit, dope

I undid your undiding. :D Next time, please don't think you know more. You don't. (Note that this post is good natured in origin. Thanks. ;D) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottwindcrest (talk • contribs) 04:00, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

No problem with you reverting me, I can see it either place. Bahooka (talk) 04:05, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Stop

Could you stop reverting my edits? Or I'll have to report you.--Lupininterelps (talk) 19:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

It looked like you were just reverting the edits of User:Adjwilley, because those edits did not appear to be vandalism. However, I don't want to get into an edit war so I won't revert those again. Bahooka (talk) 21:31, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!Orange Mike | Talk 19:49, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library's Books and Bytes newsletter (#2)

Books & Bytes

Sign up for monthly delivery

Welcome to the second issue of The Wikipedia Library's Books & Bytes newsletter! Read on for updates about what is going on at the intersection of Wikipedia and the library world.

Wikipedia Library highlights: New accounts, new surveys, new positions, new presentations...

Spotlight on people: Another Believer and Wiki Loves Libraries...

Books & Bytes in brief: From Dewey to Diversity conference...

Further reading: Digital library portals around the web...

Read Books & Bytes

The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs) 16:48, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

BYU Honor Code

Just for your reference, in the ongoing issues in this article, PonderosaPineapple and 71.199.59.208 are the same user. Given the recent efforts to again focus on these edits, it seems possible that 172.56.17.39 is the same user, different address. ChristensenMJ (talk) 16:33, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, that definitely looks to be the case. Bahooka (talk) 16:53, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Joseph Smith

Before making the edit, I made a post on the talk page explaining several reasons for the edit. I asked if anyone wants to revert, to please address the reasons on the talk page before doing so, as per WP:BRD. You reverted my edit without explanation. I ask you to please go to Joseph Smith talk page and address the reasons. Thank you. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 14:27, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I explained why in the edit summary. I was reverting because of the WP:BRD process (your removal was the "B"). By the way, please review the talk page archives of the article because that sentence has been there awhile after a consensus was reached. It was both a good and a featured article with that wording. Bahooka (talk) 14:33, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Gabriel Guarin

I think it's fair to at least call the Cadillac ELR a sport compact because early when the page for it was first being posted it was considered a sports car. I ask for permission to have it kept as sport compact. Thank you. GaGu13 (talk) December 20, 2013184.76.104.15 (talk) 02:47, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Cite a reference from a reliable source stating it is a sports compact. And please sign in when you are editing. And use an edit summary. Bahooka (talk) 06:08, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

A Tesla Roadster for you!

	A Tesla Roadster for you!
	Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia! Gg53000 (talk) 14:45, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

VW Golf MK1 - good faith changes reverted

Hello,

Can you please explain why you reverted the "good faith" changes I made to the VW Golf Mk 1 page, i.e. adding an "In popular culture" section. Many pages have such a section, so what was wrong with what I did?Simoncrossuk (talk) 08:02, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

As I noted in my edit summary, please review WP:WPACT which specifically addresses "In popular culture" sections in automobile articles. Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 15:53, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Duly done and noted. Thanks. Personally I have always found the popular culture section interesting and never yet seen one that has deteriorated as per the guidance. Hey ho. Simoncrossuk (talk) 21:39, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Books & Bytes New Years Double Issue

Books & Bytes

Volume 1 Issue 3, December/January 2013

(Sign up for monthly delivery)

Happy New Year, and welcome to a special double issue of Books & Bytes. We've included a retrospective on the changes and progress TWL has seen over the last year, the results of the survey TWL participants completed in December, some of our plans for the future, a second interview with a Wiki Love Libraries coordinator, and more. Here's to 2014 being a year of expansion and innovation for TWL!

The Wikipedia Library completed the first 6 months of its Individual Engagement grant last week. Here's where we are and what we've done:

Increased access to sources: 1500 editors signed up for 3700 free accounts, individually worth over $500,000, with usage increases of 400-600%

Deep networking: Built relationships with Credo, HighBeam, Questia, JSTOR, Cochrane, LexisNexis, EBSCO, New York Times, and OCLC

New pilot projects: Started the Wikipedia Visiting Scholar project to empower university-affiliated Wikipedia researchers

Developed community: Created portal connecting 250 newsletter recipients, 30 library members, 3 volunteer coordinators, and 2 part-time contractors

Tech scoped: Spec'd out a reference tool for linking to full-text sources and established a basis for OAuth integration

Broad outreach: Wrote a feature article for Library Journal's The Digital Shift; presenting at the American Library Association annual meeting

...Read Books & Bytes!

University of Southern Maine

Hello, Bahooka. I am an employee of the University's Department of Design and Marketing Branch. I made changes to the University of Southern Maine's Wikipedia page because Tracy St.Pierre, the head of this department, has requested that I update information. If you have any more questions, please feel free to contact Ms. St.Pierre at: tstpierre@usm.maine.edu. Thank you for your concern, Darian Kopka — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darian.kopka (talk • contribs) 20:39, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

You have been asked by a number of editors to stop making those changes to the University of Southern Maine. I'm afraid Ms. St.Pierre does not understand how Wikipedia works. Please see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Bahooka (talk) 20:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Thomas S. Monson lawsuit

Hello. I was glad to see you agreed with me that the lawsuit against President Monson was too frivolous a matter to be mentioned in his WP article. Now that view is under direct attack from the user who posted a request to have it included. Short of discussing the issue, he is resorting to personal attacks that are unbecoming any self-respecting WP editor. I respectfully ask for your support in proving that this is a frivolous lawsuit and not worth mentioning on WP. If this user sees that I'm not the only one with this opinion, he might change his tune. And admittedly, I could use as many people in my corner as I can get. Thanks for your help. Please post on the article's talk page or reply on my talk page, as I don't routinely check other user's talk pages for a response. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 03:55, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Your username

Are you named for the late, lamented, restaurant in Rosemead, CA?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I visited it shortly before it closed and liked the name (and the tikis.) Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 04:53, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Ah, cool. I really miss that place. Not to mention the fish.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Et voilà: Bahooka.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:33, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Fantastic! And I took a picture of Rufus that I can upload to the article. Bahooka (talk) 00:01, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I was hoping so! I have one but it's on a SD card from an old phone that's in a box on top of my refrigerator somewhere, so it's effectively unattainable.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

AutoZone page

Hello Bahooka, I just would like to edit AutoZone page to add some positive changes about AutoZone within a couple of years. I have noticed that there contains a lot of negative news about AutoZone on its wiki page, which is OK since Wiki is an open website. HOWEVER, it is interesting to find out all the negative messages were added by AutoZone's competitor - Advanced Auto Part (Yea I traced the IP address to locate them). Do you think it is a fair play? Plus I have checked Advanced Auto Part and all other competitors' Wiki pages and I did NOT find a single negative message about them there. Do you think it was someone who just did it to AutoZone?

Plus I have added AutoZone's value and pledge with a reference, but it was reverted again. Because of possible vandalism? This is the values that AutoZoners have been working for years and AutoZone has published the values and pledges everywhere. To me it seems that any positive messages about AutoZone can not be added and any negative ones can not be deleted. Is it a fair play?

By the way talking about possible vandalism, I don't believe AutoZone is second-largest retailer and Advanced Auto Part is the largest, depending on comparing them from different perspectives. And the reference to that statement was from AutoZone annual report in 2012, WHEN AutoZone was the largest one. I know Advanced Auto Part people tried to claim they are number one after its acquisition in 2013. However, not in 2012 from the reference.

I appreciate your hard work on maintaining the pages. I really think we should not fight on this page. The companies should pay more attention on how to serve customers better rather than how to put negative messages to their competitors' wiki pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocwsrf didi (talk • contribs) 16:53, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Rocwsrf didi. The only thing I did was restore the content that had third-party sources supporting it. An automated bot reverted your second edit, and clearly you were not vandalizing. However, mission and value statements are generally not included on Wikipedia per WP:MISSION. The article should remain neutral, and that means both positive and negative content should be there as long as they are supported by reliable sources, usually a third part such as a newspaper or magazine. Also, if you work for AutoZone, you should read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest to make sure everything is done properly. I hope this helps as you begin to edit on Wikipedia and wish you the best. Regards, Bahooka (talk) 17:04, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Books & Bytes, Issue 4

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 4, February 2014

News for February from your Wikipedia Library.

Donations drive: news on TWL's partnership efforts with publishers

Open Access: Feature from Ocaasi on the intersection of the library and the open access movement

American Library Association Midwinter Conference: TWL attended this year in Philadelphia

Royal Society Opens Access To Journals: The UK's venerable Royal Society will give the public (and Wikipedians) full access to two of their journal titles for two days on March 4th and 5th

Going Global: TWL starts work on pilot projects in other language Wikipedias

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Fred Phelps

Please explain why you reverted my changes to Fred Phelps--RadioFan (talk) 00:58, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Sure. Per my edit summary here, I removed the internal link you added to a quotation per MOS:QUOTE. Bahooka (talk) 01:40, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Cal State Bakersfield is NOT Acceptable

You said you can Google Cal State Bakersfield and that is seems to be shorthand for CSU Bakersfield. I can Google the University of South Central and it comes up University of Southern California. Does that mean that's acceptable? No. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yutaka731 (talk • contribs) 19:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Cal State Bakersfield is common and not a pejorative term (unlike University of South Central or University of $poiled Children.) This encyclopedia is to help people learn more about the subject, and the use of common names is one of the ways to do that. That is even the case when the official style guide does not use the common name. I recommend you have this discussion at Talk:California State University, Bakersfield#Cal State Bakersfield. Another editor has already started a discussion there. Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 19:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Explaining

I patrolled your page. I went through the enormously-backlogged list of newly-created pages and confirmed that your page was okay: not spam, not an attack page, not a copyright violation, not any of the other reasons for which I would delete someone's page without asking. Then I clicked "patrolled" to remove it from the list of "pages that have not yet been patrolled", and moved on to the next entry. That's all. DS (talk) 16:44, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Finding a reference

OK, I should try finding a reference for now. Thanks for letting me know. 75.37.29.137 (talk) 17:40, April 13, 2014 — Preceding undated comment added 16:40, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 5

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 5, March 2014
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

• New Visiting Scholar positions
• TWL Branch on Arabic Wikipedia, microgrants program
• Australian articles get a link to librarians
• Spotlight: "7 Reasons Librarians Should Edit Wikipedia"

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

My use of Minor edit

Its because I always assumed it was one alright and the reason I edited the Taurus because it did replace the Five Hundred & Crown Victoria as the full size model after the Five Hundred was renamed that, and also the midsize Fusion replaced the midsize version. Give me an example of edit summaries I want to know in a nice way and I ain't no vandal and one more thing about my profile I'm no homosexual because 2 trolls edited that in 5 years ago. I removed that since they have no respect they are just jerks. I would had admitted to be an homosexual too if anyone does that to my profile again I would want them banned.

Red Polar Bear Ranger (Red Polar Bear Ranger) 03:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

My comment on your edit here is that your addition was unsourced. If you would like to read it, please include a reference per the WP:Verifiability policy. Regarding the use of minor edits, your contribution history shown here shows the use of "minor edit" as the edit summary on almost all your edits, including ones further back. Please add a more descriptive edit summary to help out other readers. Help:Edit summary gives more guidance on this. Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 03:54, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Audi

--Audiluver (talk) 15:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)Why did you revert my post?

See my edit summary here. The original capitalization was correct per Wikipedia's WP:Manual of Style. Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 15:15, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Audiluver (talk) 15:19, 24 April 2014 (UTC) But if it stands for something don't you capitalize it?

It is not a proper noun, so no. By the way, the four tildes go after your comment as your signature, not before the comment. Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 15:21, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh, oops thanks! Audiluver (talk) 15:29, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Here's a barnstar for all your Audiiting Ha Ha!!! d8) Audiluver (talk) 15:41, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I hope you got my joke, I live in a family of puns.Audiluver (talk) 16:05, 24 April 2014 (UTC) If I edit something why does it say something like +58? Audiluver (talk) 16:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Got it! And I'm not quite sure what things like +58 mean, sorry. Size of the edit, maybe? Bahooka (talk) 16:10, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

If you go to your own contributions page you will see it to the left of the time and date. Audiluver (talk) 16:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh, there. That is the number of bytes (basically characters in the English Wikipedia) added or subtracted by your edit. See Wikipedia:Added or removed characters. Bahooka (talk) 16:53, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh, thanks. Audiluver (talk) 17:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Friends

	Friend
	thanks for helping me and giving me tips. Audiluver (talk) 18:41, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

How do you add a picture? Where do get it from? Audiluver (talk) 01:03, 25 April 2014 (UTC) Hey how do you make a picture smaller size? Audiluver (talk) 12:40, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

A helpful guideline on images can be found at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images. Good luck, Bahooka (talk) 14:40, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the fixing my pictures . Audiluver (talk) 15:18, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Vivint page

I think the class action in introduction is appropriate as it should be a condensed summary of the page... The fact that a class action was certified is relevant. A class action certification is a big deal and said classes can affect hundreds of thousands...I am sure that there will be many more class actions against Vivint in the future.

As a matter of fact another one is starting in California...

The vivint page is written like a fluff news piece BTW.

Cnolon (talk) 20:10, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Cnolon, this topic is better addressed at the article talk page rather than my talk page. I set up the section at Talk:Vivint#Sentence in lead section on April 17 to discuss this very topic. Please take this discussion there so others can weigh in. Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 20:19, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect application of boosterism criteria

Bahooka,

I noticed you have been excessively and blindly eliminating all mention of rankings in the lead section of academic institutions. Read the boosterism page closely:

Assert facts, including facts about opinions, but do not assert the opinions themselves. Editors should not be trying to "sell", "spin", or otherwise convince readers of the quality of the school. "One of the" and "widely recognized" are canonical weasel words: how many are among the best, what specific recognition, best on what criteria, how recent in the recognition, etc. If the statement can't stand without weasel words it lacks a neutral point of view. If a college or university was ranked 4th internationally in the most recent Academic Ranking of World Universities, state exactly that rather than contorting it into non-neutral and non-verifiable statements like those above.

As long as a phrase simply states the rankings objectively as a matter of fact (without peacock words), it does not contravene any Wikipedia guidelines. Also, there is NOTHING to suggest rankings cannot or should not be included in the lead section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Modifiersnnz (talk • contribs) 10:22, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• Also, if you persist in making subjective edits targeting particular pages, I will get the moderators involved (I have several friends who have full privileges on Wikipedia).

The WP:BOOSTERISM guideline states that ""do not use rankings in the lead as these are specific facts that should appear later in the article." I have quoted that in edit summaries. Your edit has been reverted twice by other editors, too. You may want to learn more about how Wikipedia works before threatening me. This comment on my talk page appears to be your very first edit. This seems unusual, so you may also want to review WP:SOCK and WP:MEAT. Bahooka (talk) 13:53, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Bahooka, Your approach to the problem is in my opinion exactly correct. Dealing with this sort of material is a constant problem. It does have to go somewhere, because it is verifiable and relevant, and usually represents an informed judgement. It does however not belong in the lede, if only because it is overbalance. (not that we admins have any particular jurisdiction over content disputes, but we do enforce the rule about promotionalism ). If you have any difficulties with editors who do not understand this after it is explained to them, please just let me know directly on my user talk page, and I'll deal with it in a day or two. DGG ( talk ) 02:33, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Excellent work

You've been doing an excellent job with the Wharton articles. I think their current list of alumni is the cleanest of all such pages in WP--thanks primarily to you. DGG ( talk ) 02:35, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Wow, thanks. That made my day. I appreciate it a lot. Bahooka (talk) 03:44, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Semiprotection

Due to the influx of Altimgamr socks attacking here, this page has been protected for 12 hours. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:37, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 13:40, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Books & Bytes, Issue 6

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 6, April-May 2014
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

• New donations from Oxford University Press and Royal Society (UK)
• TWL does Vegas: American Library Association Annual plans
• TWL welcomes a new coordinator, resources for library students and interns
• New portal on Meta, resources for starting TWL branches, donor call blitzes, Wikipedia Visiting Scholar news, and more

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOPRICES on Mitsubishi Magna

Hey there, just read WP:NOPRICES and like anything else, I note it is not mandatory so I thought I would leave this on your page to explain the undo shortly.

• An article should not include product pricing = "should not" does not mean "must not"
• unless there is a source and a justified reason for the mention = I will add the source, which I did not realise was needed
• Prices and product availability can vary widely from place to place and over time = OSX made this point and thanks to his feedback, this is why I included only prices AT LAUNCH on the AUSTRALIAN home market for this car and only for the FIRST SERIES of each model
• Wikipedia is not a price comparison service to compare the prices of competing products = this doesn't apply because this car is discontinued and no longer for sale.

But the main reasons for the UNDO are that:

• with your Undo, the text now does not make sense (e.g. where the price was for the "manual", you just left it as showing that the specific version was only available as a manual, when an automatic was also available... removing just the price won't fix the sentence)
• There were previous prices, and with my additions, there is now consistent and factual price information for ALL models of this car and not just some.

If you don't agree, raise this in the article Talk page may be? Or amend the WHOLE article so that it makes sense! But careful for examples like the above... your amended sentences aren't accurate or correct now just by removing the price unfortunately.

Cheers :) Editoriummm (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:55, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think prices on this vehicle are notable and, as you now recognize, are unsourced. Sorry if it affected the wording, and I won't be hitting undo on this, but I think there should be a consensus on why the prices are necessary (even with citations from a reliable source). Does anyone agree that WP:NOPRICES, a Wikipedia POLICY, does not apply here? Bahooka (talk) 17:05, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

(ec) Also, I just copied this content over to the article talk page so other editors will join in the discussion about prices. Bahooka (talk) 17:11, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry was putting this while you were editing! What would be the easiest way to quote/reference a magazine price list please? I can address that unless prices get removed... OSX suggested including a price range instead but I managed to painstakingly find each right one through my mountain of magazines... hope it's not wasted effort lol Editoriummm (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:08, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

This would be better discussed at the article talk page, and I have copied the section there. Bahooka (talk) 17:11, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

reporting abuse

i did not like the comment you left on my page. i will be reporting you to wikipedia for abuse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nynj450 (talk • contribs) 22:10, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay. It is the standard wording when someone copies and pastes content from a web page (even if there are very small differences.) See WP:COPYVIO. You were warned about it before as can be seen in your user talk page history. Bahooka (talk) 22:17, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library: New Account Coordinators Needed

Hi Books & Bytes recipients: The Wikipedia Library has been expanding rapidly and we need some help! We currently have 10 signups for free account access open and several more in the works... In order to help with those signups, distribute access codes, and manage accounts we'll need 2-3 more Account Coordinators.

It takes about an hour to get up and running and then only takes a couple hours per week, flexible depending upon your schedule and routine. If you're interested in helping out, please drop a note in the next week at my talk page or shoot me an email at: jorlowitzgmail.com. Thanks and cheers, Jake Ocaasi via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry

I mistakenly thought you were reporting me on the admin board. I didn't read it close enough. I'm very sorry. Magnolia677 (talk) 03:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

No problem! Bahooka (talk) 04:34, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

vivint

Re: Reference does not state anything about falsely and erroneously, and forum posts are not reliable sources. (TW)

---

What's your problem?

If you had actually looked at the ref links you would see that 2GIG developed/designed the Go2.0 panel in 2011/2012.

Source: http://www.electronichouse.com/product/details/go2.0/

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/history-repeats-2gig-technologies-wins-001100867.html

Then Vivint claims it is their panel, that they in fact recently (as of June 2014), developed and designed it themselves. (Claiming to develop and design a 2GIG panel that had previously existed for Two years, and which was the winner of the 2012 security expo, and Maximum impact awards...makes this claim of Vivint's (to have developed and designed the "sky panel") false and erroneous.

"With Vivint Sky, we have created a truly human smart home system that learns from you.

The Vivint SkyControl panel features completely redesigned hardware and software developed by Vivint, including a larger touchscreen and an elegant new operating system that makes it easy to gain insights into the home..."

Source: http://www.vivint.com/en/company/newsroom/press/Vivint-Humanizes-the-Smart-Home-with-Vivint-Sky

Even a fool can see the panels are identical... (Vivint also claimed that the 2GIG GoControl panel was theirs)

2gig Go2.0 (2012 image) http://s28.postimg.org/xyx9ejo31/20140527_090527.jpg

Vivint Sky panel (2014 image) http://s30.postimg.org/9hplorj9t/IMG_20140613_112332.jpg

Cnolon (talk) 15:36, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Cnolon, go right ahead and file a complaint. You may want to review the following policies and guidelines first: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources for the use of forum posts as a reference, Wikipedia:No original research (particularly WP:SYNTHESIS) for stating your own conclusion about falsely and erroneously claiming something, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for being the admin of the forum you are using to support your edits (per this edit that you blanked, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view as you've stated that it is your "mission to educate others regarding Vivint". Bahooka (talk) 15:37, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Greetings!

Hello, Ma'am/Sir! I'm Nkrm01 and I world want to thank you for the message and the suggestion that you made on my Wikipedia account. God bless and more power! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nkrm01 (talk • contribs) 19:11, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome and hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia. Bahooka (talk) 19:16, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 7

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 7, June-July 2014
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs)

• Seven new donations, two expanded partnerships
• TWL's Final Report up, read the summary
• Adventures in Las Vegas, WikiConference USA, and updates from TWL coordinators
• Spotlight: Blog post on BNA's impact on one editor's research

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

[Hobby Lobby] Funding Abortion in China

I have discussed on talk and I have posted to the users talk pages. I have addressed the concerns I can with edits and I have addressed concerns by discussing my position. I have gotten no responses. Does that make the discussion if over? Does that mean the users don't care they stand by their choice? It is a little disconcerting to understand how to get meaningful relevant information posted when it is clearly information the party would prefer to sweep under the rug. If you have any suggestion about how to handle this I am hoping you are not like the others and you will respond. OneHandClap (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:32, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

The consensus on the talk page (and in edit summaries) appears to be to not include your content on the encyclopedia article. Please stop putting it in the article against consensus. And other editors HAVE responded (see here, here and mine here). You have a lot of links on your talk page as part of your welcome. I recommend you read them, especially WP:NPOV and WP:CONSENSUS. Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 16:47, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Reeferences

And yes, User:GENR12, each entry needs a reference per WP:Verifiability. That unsourced content you keep adding should stay out until you are willing to cite where you are getting it. I'm not sure where you are getting the information or why you refuse to cite it. Bahooka (talk) 15:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

1) But i add references (2004-2014 year it's not mine redact - i just restore it). 1 or 2 reference for each year where you can see all of debuted cars, not only the one car that near reference link.

For example: Chevrolet Suburban Show Truck "1999 New York International Auto Show".

If you go to http://www.thecarconnection.com/news/1001465_1999-new-york-show-trucks you can see not only Chevrolet Suburban in this reference, but and many another cars from this year auto show.

2) each entry needs a reference per WP:Verifiability

Each entry - not each word. Entry for example is 2005 year report, not the "2006 Chevrolet Malibu". — Preceding unsigned comment added by GENR12 (talk • contribs) 15:26, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I showed you how to properly do this last November (scroll up on this page for our earlier discussion on references). I will try to show you again using the sample link you gave me. But unless the vehicle has a source, it needs to stay off the page. Bahooka (talk) 15:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Why do you think that duplicate equally links for each car like you did - it's what WP:Verifiability needs? Where you see this in rules? Duplicate same links - looks totally pointless, do you really think that users can't go to ONE reference and see all cars? It's only your personal opinion, there is no strong recommendations in rules for situations like this, and each entry - don't means each word and each car.

Please forgive for mistankes in English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GENR12 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

If the citation is next to one car, the citation is for that particular car. Each entry stands on its own (unless there is an opening sentence containing the reference for everything in the section, but that is not the case in this article.) The duplicate entry template is used for that reason. Read also WP:Source list. If you still disagree with me and other editors that have been telling you the same thing, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Bahooka (talk) 16:04, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

In this case there is a list of debuts and introductions, simple the list of car names, not a standard encyclopedic text. References must be of course, but i mean that no strong rules in WP:Verifiability (and all others) for this kind of content, no such rule that "each car in list of debuts must have reference". GENR12 (talk) 16:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

It looks like you disagree with everyone else editing the auto show articles and you should use the dispute resolution steps I mentioned to show why you think your interpretation of Wikipedia's policies and Manual of Style is correct and others are wrong. Bahooka (talk) 16:21, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

"It looks like you disagree with everyone else editing the auto show articles"

Who is "everyone else editing the auto show articles"? But if you look on another auto show topics (for example - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Motor_Show) you can see that there is no each car in list of debuts have reference and it's normal. GENR12 (talk) 16:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Warren Whyte and User:Vossanova also edit auto show articles and use the proper approach of referencing each vehicle. Look at LA Auto Show and North American International Auto Show for examples of how this is done. Bahooka (talk) 16:47, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

But you and everyone else who want can add references in way that you want at any time. And anyway this auto show reports has a lot of references. In any case there is no such rules violations that must results for deleteion. And of course no such many mistakes, does not make sense delete content without a lot of mistakes. GENR12 (talk) 17:14, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I think we are done here. We clearly disagree. Bahooka (talk) 17:17, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Is Truth Being Censored?

Why does my addition of Joseph Smith to the "Criminals" portion of the Famous Mormons page keep getting taken down? I have no personal animosity toward Mormonism or religion in general, and there is no reasonable room for dispute that Joseph Smith was convicted of illegal banking. He was also undeniably killed by a mob while awaiting trial for several things. It shouldn't matter that it's a sensitive issue. Truth is truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MattyFatSacks (talk • contribs) 21:19, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually, there is a lot of room for dispute for including Smith on the list with that description. Also, Wikipedia is not a reference but you have been including it as one. If you feel strongly about including him on the list, I recommend you discuss it on the article talk page. Bahooka (talk) 21:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I said no "reasonable" room for dispute. I guess there's enough biased misinformation out there that it may seems reasonable, though, so I guess saying something enough might actually make it true. But, you're right about the Wikipedia reference. I was in the process of updating it when my update disappeared. Sorry about the sloppy cite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MattyFatSacks (talk • contribs) 21:45, 13 August 2014 (UTC) See, e.g., http://www.mrm.org/kirtland

An anti-Mormon site like mrm.org is not a reliable source on Wikipedia, either. If you want to discuss the edit more, I recommend you go to Talk:List of Latter Day Saints so others can weigh in. Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 22:00, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Urbis Evolo

I have declined your speedy because a quick Google shows that this is a real product, not a hoax. Whether it is notable is another matter. JohnCD (talk) 20:00, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. When I clicked on the provided link at Urbis, I found it is an article on a museum venue. That, along with the other odd articles the user was creating, made me think that an unreferenced article about a street light was a hoax. I agree with your approach and agree that the notability still has to be established. Best, Bahooka (talk) 20:06, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Thomas Egbers (racing driver)

Thanks for adding the hoax - I was about to do the same, since you added it, I deleted it :-) Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:49, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Bahooka (talk) 19:50, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

General Motors

Perhaps there needs to be a correction in General Motors Chapter 11 reorganization in the section 363 Sale of assets where it is referred to as an LLC. Also not to be confused with a subsidiary called General Motors Holdings LLC. Nyth83 (talk) 15:51, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Maybe. I just was not seeing anything in SEC filings nor in the reference given that refers to the overall General Motors Company as a limited liability company. You may want to seek comments on the article talk page. Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 15:58, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

My mistake for the lack of due diligence. I just assumed that with three references that the information was correct there and did not actually read the references. It does appear that it is not an LLC. I do have a login for the site GM Media so I can get the correct answer straight from the horses mouth as it were, if necessary. Do you have a link for the SEC filing? Nyth83 (talk) 16:43, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Here and if that is awkward as a link, all the GM SEC filings can be found here. Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 17:05, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 8

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 8, August-September2014
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs)

• TWL now a Wikimedia Foundation program, moves on from grant status
• Four new donations, including large DeGruyter parntership, pilot with Elsevier
• New TWL coordinators, Wikimania news, new library platform discussions, Wiki Loves Libraries update, and more
• Spotlight: "Traveling Through History" - an editor talks about his experiences with a TWL newspaper archive, Newspapers.com

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

New Wikipedia Library Accounts Now Available (November 2014)

Hello Wikimedians!

The TWL OWL says sign up today :)

The Wikipedia Library is announcing signups today for, free, full-access accounts to published research as part of our Publisher Donation Program. You can sign up for:

• DeGruyter: 1000 new accounts for English and German-language research. Sign up on one of two language Wikipedias:
  • English signup
  • Deutsch signup
• Fold3: 100 new accounts for American history and military archives
• Scotland's People: 100 new accounts for Scottish genealogy database
• British Newspaper Archive: expanded by 100+ accounts for British newspapers
• Highbeam: 100+ remaining accounts for newspaper and magazine archives
• Questia: 100+ remaining accounts for journal and social science articles
• JSTOR: 100+ remaining accounts for journal archives

Do better research and help expand the use of high quality references across Wikipedia projects: sign up today!
--The Wikipedia Library Team 23:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

You can host and coordinate signups for a Wikipedia Library branch in your own language. Please contact Ocaasi (WMF).

This message was delivered via the Mass Message to the Book & Bytes recipient list.

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	Thanks! I am learning! Have a great day!! Surance (talk) 19:31, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Great! I'm trying to link the pertinent policies and guidelines in my edit summaries to help you out with the learning process. Cheers, Bahooka (talk) 19:35, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

EMV article

Hello, i am not familiar with the editor but i guess you removed all the table about "Card scheme" in the "application selection" paragraph , why ? this table are correct and I am usually refering too (i know what i am talking about i work in the payment industry) so if it's because there is no source, maybe it will be more constructive to first make some research to check if the info is correct , instead of removing valuable information without verifying ? it make sense to me... Regards 213.158.218.22 (talk) 09:49, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

See Talk:EMV/Archives/2014#Table under Application Selection and discuss there. Right now the table fails the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy and must stay off until a reference is provided. Bahooka (talk) 16:07, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Update#1 ok but you not comment what i said : why remove something valuable without checking it first ? it look like to me you just blindly remove some valuable info because of some rules... will it not be more constructive to search first if this info is correct and add some link ? instead of removing all... i can understand you don't have time for this, thus it should be a request on the main page... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.172.68.145 (talk) 09:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

You have not put any references to check, so why don't you put some citations for this table? Please discuss this on the article talk page Talk:EMV/Archives/2014#Table under Application Selection, not here. Bahooka (talk) 15:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Update#2 I see you are carefully avoiding my point, again : why remove something valuable without checking it first ? and now you ask to me to put some reference to check, eeeh sorry but is it me who removed this link ? NO its YOU ! YOU are responsible for this not ME ! From my point of view it is little to easy to remove some info without checking them, yes of course you don't want to bother with this and just delete is more easy than searching to verify this info... you can delete 10% of the wiki like this (or whatever number)... BUT it could be more CONSTRUCTIVE to FIND reference instead of DELETE article... maybe you will get my point.... and this discussion belongs here as its YOU who deleted this table, you can copy/paste it on the talk page if you wish :-) 83.6.188.11 (talk) 11:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Per the Wikipedia policy WP:Verifiability, "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." It is YOUR responsibility to add a reference. And it is now time for you to stay off my user talk page and discuss this issue at Talk:EMV/Archives/2014#Table under Application Selection. Bahooka (talk) 15:49, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

New Wikipedia Library Accounts Now Available (December 2014)

Hello Wikimedians!

The TWL OWL says sign up today :)

The Wikipedia Library is announcing signups today for, free, full-access accounts to published research as part of our Publisher Donation Program. You can sign up for:

• Elsevier - science and medicine journals and books
• Royal Society of Chemistry - chemistry journals
• Pelican Books - ebook monographs
• Public Catalogue Foundation- art books

Other partnerships with accounts available are listed on our partners page. Do better research and help expand the use of high quality references across Wikipedia projects: sign up today!
--The Wikipedia Library Team.00:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

You can host and coordinate signups for a Wikipedia Library branch in your own language. Please contact Ocaasi (WMF).

This message was delivered via the Mass Message tool to the Book & Bytes recipient list.

NYU alumni

Hi Bahooka! I just wondered why you (if it was you) removed my name from the List of New York University alumni article. I'm indeed an alumni of TSOA (B.F.A. 1990), and just because I'm Norwegian shouldn't exclude my entry. I wanted to link the norwegian article; no:Håkon Noodt to the Category:Tisch School of the Arts alumni, and that was my main objective from the beginning. Maybe you know how to interlanguage these articles? Thanks for your help. Håkon Noodt (talk) 22:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC) For additional information see my website; www.hnoodt.com.

Nationality has nothing to do with it. Your name was removed because a) there is no article on you on the English Wikipedia and b) there is no reference that you went there and are notable. The list is only for notable alumni, not everyone. Have someone write an article on you and include a reference (not from Wikipedia), and your name can stay. Unfortunately, I am not familiar with how to link to other language Wikipedias. Bahooka (talk) 22:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Rangeblock

According to http://whois.domaintools.com/74.82.68.32 - this blackberry address is in the range 74.82.64.0 - 74.82.95.255 - that's 8192 addresses. Do try to keep a log of the IP and the vandalism. If it can be shown that it's always in that range then we could consider a rangeblock - it's a bit of a last resort, as it can block out a lot normal users. Personally, I'd rather semi protect a load of pages, but if there are too many for that option then maybe the rangeblock is the only way. I've blocked those other two addresses for 1 month - but as you have seen, he knows how to switch IPs - even though http://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/74.82.68.32 is showing a static address, clearly he knows how to force a change. If you can give me a list of pages where there are two or more similar edits with different IPs, then I will happily semi-protect them as an IP hopping vandal attack. We need to do something to show that he cannot win. (if you reply here - do add a ping - I don't get time to get through my watchlist - it's always getting too big anyway!) Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:11, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

@Ronhjones:, thanks for your help. I'll try to start logging his edits so you can determine the best approach in dealing with this vandal. Best, Bahooka (talk) 01:34, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

@Ronhjones:, the Brian Thompson vandal is back as 98.218.106.225 here and here. Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 17:10, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

@Bahooka: Looks like that IP is now blocked for 1 year. I've also semi-protected those pages. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:43, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll keep you posted if (when?) he pops up again under a different IP address. Best, Bahooka (talk) 19:49, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

@Ronhjones:, the Brian Thompson vandal is back as 64.26.97.130 (e.g., here). Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 17:40, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi protected Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:18, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Edit_filter/Requested#Brian_Thompson_vandal Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:37, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help. Bahooka (talk) 20:38, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

@Ronhjones:, "Brian Thompson" back under 2600:1003:B016:56CA:0:0:0:103. Bahooka (talk) 17:11, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

No problem. I've expanded the edit filter request with the lastest versions. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

And the "Brian Thompson" vandal is back under 2600:1003:B02A:1D70:0:0:0:103, 2600:1003:B010:A8A9:0:0:0:103 and 66.250.191.207, @Ronhjones:. Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 21:39, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Churches in Newport Beach

The Mormon Temple wiki provides no more information about Newport Beach then these places, listed below do, you are invited to make a page about Churches of Newport Beach but, as per the rules and policies of Wikipedia, it needs to be unbiased. Simply listing two that you know of, as it was on the page once before, is just a justifiable reason to place the churches, under "More About Newport Beach", as listing the two that you continue to repost, is clearly biased. Please discontinue reposting these to the page, but do make a unbiased page that lists ALL OF THE CHURCHES in Newport and we can list that, on the main page. Cheers!

Mariners Church

St Andrew's Presbyterian Church

Our Lady Queen of Angels Catholic Church

Our Lady of Mount Carmel Church

The Crossing Church

Community Church Congregational

St. Andrews Presbyterian Church + others that I have missed, the t is, you may not use Wikipedia to promote your favorite church. talk→ WPPilot  14:21, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

The churches you just listed do not have Wikipedia articles, unlike the notable ones I added. There is a big difference. And keep this discussion on the article talk page. Bahooka (talk) 16:07, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

You are missing the point. That is inappropriate for the page, it is inappropriate for the sub heading "More About Newport" and constitutes IMHO a bias that Newport Beach AS A WHOLE does not have. A sub heading, perhaps under politics that has a link to the nice page you can create that is NON BIASED and about all the churches in Newport would be ok, assuming it was well refed and written, but to add, as you have the LDS temple, and to suggest that it provides "more info about Newport beach" is simply not going to fly as these pages need to be written in a manner that provides no bias, and your suggested good faith contributions are biased, in the manner that your trying to insert them here. Also the Wiki page, on the LDS church in NB is sparse, and IMHO hardly more or less notable then any of the others, unless it is yours then it all makes sense, but still does not belong on the Newport Beach, Wikipedia page :) talk→ WPPilot  16:52, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

The section heading is 'See also', not 'More about Newport'. We clearly disagree about if these two notable churches belong in the article as being indirectly related to the article subject. Maybe an RfC would be helfpful. I don't want a list of all churches, just the ones with Wikipedia articles. And no, I did not create the article on the LDS temple (different from their normal churches) eight years ago nor the St. James Anglican Church article. You've been around long enough to know to Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Bahooka (talk) 23:08, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

December 2014

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Newport Beach California Temple. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. John from Idegon (talk) 00:25, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

One revert is hardly an edit war. A misleading edit summary stating something is unsourced when it actually is should be a greater concern (like here.) Bahooka (talk) 00:31, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

It is far more then one edit, you seem dead set on doing whatever you can to persuade the community of your views and are unable to provide ANY substantiation that is not dated 2005. I have told you over and over but you simply do not seem to care to listen or learn. Continue and I will support a block. talk→ WPPilot  04:48, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Look at that revision history of Newport Beach California Temple again. I only reverted one time in the entire article's history. The rest of my edits were making the article better and adding more references. That is not edit warring. Bahooka (talk) 04:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 9

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 9, November-December 2014
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs)

• New donations, including real-paper-and-everything books, e-books, science journal databases, and more
• New TWL coordinators, conference news, a new open-access journal database, summary of library-related WMF grants, and more
• Spotlight: "Global Impact: The Wikipedia Library and Persian Wikipedia" - a Persian Wikipedia editor talks about their experiences with database access in Iran, writing on the Persian project and the JSTOR partnership

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Who are you?

Why are you deleting this important consumer information about for-profit colleges? Who are you?

dahnshaulisDahnshaulis (talk) 23:20, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I am a Wikipedia editor just like you. However, I think you need to read the links in the edit summaries and review the information ElKevbo has written. This is an encyclopedia, not a place for what you consider is important consumer information. Please see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not to get a better idea of Wikipedia and your edits. Bahooka (talk) 00:05, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I reviewed the information that Kevin Guidry (aka ElKevbo) wrote and am familiar with him. Who are you, and what interest do you have in this entry? Please be transparent here. Also, please take the time to learn more about the many purposes of encyclopedias, especially for the purpose of democracy.

dahnshaulisDahnshaulis (talk) 15:53, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I recommend you learn more how Wikipedia works. Your expectations do not appear to be in alignment with the project's approach. Look in detail at Wikipedia:Five pillars. Bahooka (talk) 16:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

re: uc davis

Re: this edit [1] -- I wasn't quite done :) I was in the process of moving the faculty link up to the existing section on faculty and research where I think it actually belongs. If you look at the UNI style guide, it can be divided up into Alumni and Faculty if need be. I was also looking at similar featured articles, i.e. the very similar University of California, Riverside. I'll go ahead and make the change back with the full edit, but let's discuss on the talk page if need be. Thanks! -- phoebe / (talk to me) 22:24, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry if I jumped the gun. I have no problem with alumni as a heading (despite WP:UNIGUIDE) if you move faculty out of the section. Bahooka (talk) 22:26, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! My internet flaked out in the middle of saving so it took a while :) cheers, -- phoebe / (talk to me) 22:32, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Reference does mention American Intercontinental U.

"The Veterans’ Student Loan Relief Fund, which tries to help student veterans dig out from under debt they incurred at for-profit education companies, recently awarded a $5,000 grant to a Pensacola veteran who had racked up $73,000 in student debt at American Intercontinental University."Dahnshaulis (talk) 16:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I read the reference twice and didn't see that. Thank you for pointing that out. I will self revert (and format the bare reference.) Bahooka (talk) 16:12, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

For-profit education: Difference between revisions

Bahooka,

You (Undid revision 643589617 because the article on Charter Schools is already linked in the body of this article). I am asking you to reconsider this edit.

I included this link more prominently because it has become a major point of historical and political interest in the 21st century.

It is notable that The Walton Family and Bill Gates are part of this UScharter school movement, which is a combination of public and private, nonprofit and profit-making.

Unions such as American Federation of Teachers had been on the other side of the battle, but they have been changing their tone recently and are instead moving to unionize charter schools. http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2014/09/05/03charterunions.h34.html

Dianne Ravitch, an education historian and former Bush DoEd official has written in depth about the charter school movement.

http://faculty.buffalostate.edu/wahlstrl/eng309/ravitch%20why%20I%20changed%20my%20mind.pdf

Although this is only a blog post, it tells you who is involved (with is not in dispute). http://dianeravitch.net/2014/05/06/walton-funded-group-says-charter-schools-underfunded/

I'm way ahead of you. I self-reverted shortly afterwards because I noted they were linked to two different articles. But if they were to the same article, the link should only occur in the body of the article per WP:SEEALSO. But that's a moot point in this case. By the way, the ref tags don't go on a talk page so I removed them from your edit above. They mess up the formatting. Bahooka (talk) 15:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Career Education Corporation: redundancy

Hello, I am simply trying to clean up a page that has been messy for a long time. I noticed you deleted everything I fixed and relayed that both presidents were removed. But, that's not true. They are both listed in the controversy history and the current CEO is also listed in the sidebar box. I will be cleaning the controversy/downsizing sections as well at some point, making sure they are in sequential order, no redundancy and neutral factual information. I am not trying to market the company, just accurately write a page of information.

I am pretty new to this so if you have any helpful suggestions, I'd welcome them. Apologize for just being a number right now. Thank you.

C. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.218.2 (talk) 23:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

It's not redundant to mention the presidents twice if once is under the history section (like most schools) and once is under the controversies section. That controversies section will likely go away and the content integrated into the rest of the article per WP:CSECTION. If you are new, I recommend reviewing Wikipedia:College and university article guidelines and, as you have a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, you really should be suggesting these changes on the article page at Talk:Career Education Corporation instead of directly editing the article. This is particularly important when you've been reverted. Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 23:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

It is redundant to mention presidents twice, but at this point, I'd just like to understand why you and (I'm not sure if you two are buddies) and Dashnaulis continue to revert any edits I make to the CEC page. No offense, but aren't you supposed to be objective? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.218.2 (talk) 17:30, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I revert edits that I believe do not fit Wikipedia's policies. I'm not sure why you reverted my edit when all I did was move some brackets to fix redlinks. And as you have a conflict of interest, you should generally not be editing the article directly but instead recommend changes on the article talk page. Bahooka (talk) 17:34, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I apologize, I had no idea the overview had been reverted back to the old overview. I also apologize if you were not the person who deleted it...there are too many "reverters" in there right now and it's getting a little confusing. Sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.218.2 (talk) 17:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Career Education Corporation: questions

Mr. B, I don't plan on removing the controversies section. Just want to get this page cleaned up. What can I do first to get my edits restored? Much of the information on the page is old and not current. Someone added sourced information to the article that CEC plans to let go of 600 to 900 employees..yet the employee count on the page is still at 8,000?? Some of those folks on the Officer List have been long gone or retired which is why we took the list out in the first place. It would be nice to have a Social Responsiblity section like other schools get to have. Notable Alumni section even. So what can I do? C.[User ID. 216.49.218.2]216.49.218.2 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I recommend discussing your desired changes at Talk:Career Education Corporation. Then someone without a conflict of interest (e.g., not editing from the CEC domain) can review and make the changes if appropriate. You will probably want to show citations backing up your changes and avoid copyright violations that come from copy-and-pastes from the corporate website. Best, Bahooka (talk) 18:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Career Education Corporation: questions

I noticed that you added that I needed a citation for the employee count. But, the previous number was never cited. In the downsizing section, I'm sure it was Dahn who added a source that said CEC was laying off 600 people people and that's what happened. Does it really need a citation? I do know it's on the company website. Not sure if that means anything. Thank you.

Oh, and thank you for taking off all those officer names. It's much better without that.

If you could take off the one-line Dianne Feinstein shareholder husband information in the "history" that would be great too. There's just no reason to name one shareholder if the company is not disclosing all of the names or financial stats and it looks out of place. Does that make sense? thanks C216.49.218.2 (talk) 21:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

C

You're welcome on the names. I looked at the infobox guidelines and found there were too many. The number of employees really should have a reference, and it should have had one when it read 8,000. If you could find one on the website or elsewhere that would be great. The section of the website I saw just stated over 7,000. Where are you getting the 7,400 number?

As far as the Richard C. Blum mention, I'm not sure it is notable enough to stay in the article, either. I recommend you starting a section on that article talk page to discuss its removal. Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 21:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Subway

I've semi-protected Subway (restaurant) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The disruptive edits have been going on for years from related IP ranges (see this edit that cleaned up some of the talk page trolling in 2012). If you have the article watch-listed, and notice the disruption begin again after protection expires, feel free to post on my talk page and I'll extend the protection. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, will do. Bahooka (talk) 22:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry

About my edit in Origin of the Book of Mormon I was reading and I thought it was a typos, but then thanks to your explanation in the edition summary understood Sr. means Senior. (I'm not an English native speaker). Cheers, --Cristian ] Yes? 02:51, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

No hay problema. Bahooka (talk) 04:08, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Newport Beach Temple

Your desire to place the temple on the NB page failed. PLease do not revert my edits without proper justification. You in no way replied to the talk page. I allowed it to remin on the page or weeks as I tend to my editorial duties and in spite of the obvious we will now allow others to respond, just as we did with the Newport Beach page. I have filed a RfC for others to comment, and review the links provided in regard to the Newport Beach Temple. Please refrain from removing the comment until others have a chance to reply to the RfC, thank you. talk→ WPPilot  00:51, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I kept my desired wording off during the RfC. You should do the same. By the way, I am hoping an uninvolved admin will close out the other RfC. Bahooka (talk) 00:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

That RfC is in the cue, so you don't need to concern yourself with it really. The RfC should be as neutral as possible, if you care to reword your comments go right head but at this junction we should just let the RfC invite comments and revisit it in a week or so. Cheers! talk→ WPPilot  01:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

This is your last warning. Revert again and you are in violation of 3RR's. Just relax and let the other editors chime in. I gave it a month for other comments and none were received. 1 more revert and you could be blocked from editing. talk→ WPPilot  02:53, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

You may have actually worn me down for awhile with your unwillingness to follow WP:NOR, WP:BRD and the basic directions given at WP:RFC. Bahooka (talk) 03:04, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Newport Beach California Temple photo WPPilot

Bahooka I am not trying to wear you down. You are a rather new editor, and I am really trying to help you learn here. You can cite WP:NOR, do you really think that the stories listed above are: "original research" (OR) that I use on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist (the links are BS?) WP:BRD or Be Bold discuss (it was on the talk page for a month) all you like, but what your doing is: WP:POV, your efforts will continue to be rejected if you are simply not willing to accept others input. This has nothing to do with me. 3RR's is here for a reason. I did the RfC, using your own words, but you refer to them as basic directions. Others can read the talk page and make the choice. It is simple really. You need to review WP:POV as your edits here are driven by your own point of view and the links provided, all 4 of them show that the landfill is where this temple is, you say that would be worth of inclusion but your unwilling to accept others input. Make up your mind. If "wear you down" means that you will allow time to evolve for other editors to weigh in, then great. If "wear you down" means that you will not continue to revert this edit, then your at least willing to follow policy and have this issue gain a consensus as the Newport Beach one did. Your point of view will be weighed in when other editors also comment. Don't blame me if your so enthusiastic about this building that your not willing to play by the rules. I am sorry this bothers you so much, I am just using the facts. talk→ WPPilot  03:23, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

While I really do not thing that this RfC has anything to do with religion, that is fine if you feel it will help obtain a consensus. I hope you like the photo, as I took it just for this reason, to show that the location in a way that was better then the photos, on the project page. Your enthusiasm is admirable but temper that into these projects. Please take a moment and review WP:POV, as I think your POV weighs too heavy in your edits, as we saw on the Newport Beach page, not one editor supported your request other then you. There is a message that you seem to be missing. Relax and let things take the proper course here. Cheers! talk→ WPPilot  13:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

You are FUNNY, go ahead, I am sure the ANI board will get a kick out of this. Your not being correct in your claim, so if you feel the need to misrepresent things to WP:POV and that is the only way you will succeed, your going to have a hard time here. talk→ WPPilot  17:44, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Not changing another editor's comments is a basic on Wikipedia. Bahooka (talk) 17:46, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Inserting a notation that the claim is incorrect is not considered a modification. PLease be truthful in your representations and do not make false claims to support your WP:POV. I am done with this for now, have a nice day and enjoy the aerial photo, it makes he place at least look noteworthy and I took the picture, just for you! Your welcome..talk→ WPPilot  18:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

We disagree on the claim, but my statement is not false. And you do not change another editor's signed posting. You address your disagreement after the other person's posting as you did later. Bahooka (talk) 18:08, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• 6 of one and a half dozen of the other, please. Inline comments on others in discussion is not a reason to go running off to the ANI board. Bahooka you state that NONE of the ref's show the temple, right, but if you using number 4 simply zoom in, there it is, right on the map only a few feet from the northern most area of the 2ed most toxic waste dump, in So Cal. You ask for a link to something showing both the dump and the temple on it, and there it is, but you claim that the link does not show it. How is that not miss representation? talk→ WPPilot  18:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Endowment link

Thanks for bringing to my attention that the "f" in PDF was missing at the end of the link I posted. I've added it in. Contributor321 (talk) 18:26, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Colorado Tech

Bahooka, I'll concede that Military Times has been perceived as a legitimate source. What happened to Colorado Tech in Military Times' lastest rankings?

http://projects.militarytimes.com/jobs/best-for-vets/2015/colleges/online-nontraditional/

As you can see from my entry, CTU has a 20% online graduation rate. I'm in the process of looking at costs and defualt rates.

Dahnshaulis (talk) 22:01, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good. Bahooka (talk) 22:03, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Newport Temple

You have to admit the new aerial photo really makes that page look nice. Frankly speaking, I never even knew where this was till you requested it on the NB page and had to research it, that is why the actual location IMHO is far better then telling how far other places are from it. The temple has you to thank for the photo as I would have never known it was there had your original request not came to light, nor would I have taken and placed the picture, in commons. Cheers! talk→ WPPilot  17:05, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Posting Bare References

The link you sent me about making citations seems very confusing. Can you give me some examples that I can use as templates? Thank you in advance for your answer. Dahnshaulis (talk) 12:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

This is an example of a magazine format, this is an example of a newspaper citation, and this is one for a website. Bahooka (talk) 13:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

98.218.106.225

This IP needs to be blocked indefinitely. They vandalized a dozen pages today. Nyth63 20:34, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I made a submission at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Nyth63 20:51, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I posted it at AIV earlier, too. This person IP hops and hits a variety of company articles, almost always putting "Brian Thompson" (or a variant of that) as CEO. He's been doing it a long time an the only way admins have been able to handle it so far is by Whac-a-mole. There is consideration of a range block if it continues and if there is not too much collateral damage. Best, Bahooka (talk) 20:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

message

Hello, Bahooka. You have new messages at Doorknob747's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Doorknob747 17:13, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 10

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 10, January-February 2015
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs)

• New donations - ProjectMUSE, Dynamed, Royal Pharmaceutical Society, and Women Writers Online
• New TWL coordinator, conference news, and a new guide and template for archivists
• TWL moves into the new Community Engagement department at the WMF, quarterly review

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:40, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Category:Super cars

Hello Bahooka. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Category:Super cars, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: It'd be better to update the relevant articles, so that this category is empty, then delete it. As it is, I'm not sure that the project should be the arbiter on the category. . Thank you. GedUK  12:19, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Template warnings

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. Rider ranger47 ^Talk 16:19, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Sweet Briar College

Hi, please remove the non-notable alumni from Sweet Briar College. Thanks--Cantucove (talk) 09:45, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Cantucove. Just so you know, my general rule of thumb is that a name on an alumni list should either a) have a Wikipedia article about them or b) have references from secondary sources that establish some notability and connection to the school. I often use WP:WTAF, but that is mainly for entries of people without clear notability or references (often people adding themselves.) In the case of Sweet Briar College, those people on the list, although having no WP articles yet, do have references. I'm going to pass on removing them. Maybe another editor feels differently. Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 14:34, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Do you feel that Polly Sowell is notable? Share your views here--Cantucove (talk) 03:18, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I have not looked closely at the AfD, and probably won't. But thanks anyway. Bahooka (talk) 13:07, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Reference date format

Thank you for the reference you added to Mazda MX-5. However, could you make sure that the date in new references is in the same format as the other references in the article. Thanks.  Stepho  talk  02:22, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll try to do that. It would be nice if Twinkle had a more automated option, or a bot that would ensure consistency. But I'll try. Bahooka (talk) 02:49, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Cool!  Stepho  talk  05:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Rahul Dholakia

Hi, you removed my name from NYIT on the basis that my biography Rahul Dholakia doesn't state that I did go there. That is not true. It clearly says I did my Masters in filmmaking from the New York Institute of Technology. Just because I'm Indian doesn't mean that I wouldn't have the money to purse education at a US university.--Mr.RahulDholakia (talk) 22:06, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Please add a reference that states that Rahul Dholakia attended NYIT per WP:Verifiability and there is no problem. Best, Bahooka (talk) 22:16, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

It's already been there in the career section for a long time--Mr.RahulDholakia (talk) 22:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

here's another one http://www.imi-filmschool.org/about_imi/faculty.php --Mr.RahulDholakia (talk) 22:25, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for that. The other reference in that article was a dead link. I will add this to the Dholakia article and revert my removal from NYIT. Bahooka (talk) 22:29, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Corona del Mar High School

Thanks for improving the section on academic awards and honors. I see Ian Thompson has jumped in again with ad hominem against me, and reverted your changes. Will you please revert his changes? His last comment makes no sense whatsoever. 72.194.125.162 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:39, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I am not going to go back to the article right now. I was just trying to bring the section title in line with Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines. I also understand that under WP:CSECTION controversies should generally be integrated into the article rather than be a standalone section. Combining the sections does achieve this goal, although it is simply a guideline. Best, Bahooka (talk) 20:44, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

ValAleBeg

Are you aware that someone used your username to sign their post? I've re-edited that signature but I thought I'd let you know anyway. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 09:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Jeraphine Gryphon, I was not aware of that. It seems odd as I don't see any connection between that user and any of my edits. I don't know which is worse, signing my user name or using Kim Kardashian as a piped link to my name :) . I appreciate the heads up. Best, Bahooka (talk) 13:48, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

A new reference tool

Hello Books & Bytes subscribers. There is a new Visual Editor reference feature in development called Citoid. It is designed to "auto-fill" references using a URL or DOI. We would really appreciate you testing whether TWL partners' references work in Citoid. Sharing your results will help the developers fix bugs and improve the system. If you have a few minutes, please visit the testing page for simple instructions on how to try this new tool. Regards, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Wilsonandrewc edits

Thanks for taking the lead on reverting most of the Wilsonandrewc edits. I had an interruption before I could start, and you beat me to almost all of them. TJRC (talk) 19:53, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Glad to help. Those were odd edits. Bahooka (talk) 19:53, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Laguna Coast Wilderness Park

Thank you for your explanation. I now understand.

Liz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lizgoldner (talk • contribs) 01:21, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Vans

Please stop vandalizing the Vans page concerning worker's rights. You claim I'm cherry-picking but it is you who is selectively editing the Vans page. The section on worker's rights is accurate and represents the rating given by Free2Work as it pertains to worker's rights. Please stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XenoRasta (talk • contribs) 01:43, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I've started a discussion at Talk:Vans. Feel free to discuss this topic there. And a content dispute is not vandalism. Bahooka (talk) 02:19, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

So you say. If I say the moon is made of cheese, it doesn't mean the moon is actually made of cheese. Words are cheap. 8675309 (talk) 10:30, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Please discuss this topic at Talk:Vans#Workers Rights so other editors can weigh in. Also, 8675309, are you also XenoRasta? I'm a little confused at your comment and why you are on my talk page. Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 13:46, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 11

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 11, March-April 2015
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs), Nikkimaria (talk · contribs)

• New donations - MIT Press Journals, Sage Stats, Hein Online and more
• New TWL coordinators, conference news, and new reference projects
• Spotlight: Two metadata librarians talk about how library professionals can work with Wikipedia

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

G8 GTX

I was asked to add cite for the car. Well Choo Choo Customs is no longer in business and I clearly laid out the SLP edition. You want proof? I drive GTX number 007 off the assembly line. Not sure what else to cite when I own the damn thing and the brand is defunct.

See the WP:Verifiability policy. You need to provide information that has been published, such as in a newspaper or magazine. Your personal experience is original research, and Wikipedia has a policy against that at Wikipedia:No original research. Bahooka (talk) 13:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Edits on Historic Wintersburg in Huntington Beach

Hi Bahooka, Is there any way to remove the old comments at the top of the Historic Wintersburg in Huntington Beach page regarding lead section (added) and citations (added a lot of citations to document the history and ongoing media coverage)? I've worked on fixing all that for several months now. I'm hoping I got the citation style right, as reference was unclear.

Also, the reason we've asked for the full name "Historic Wintersburg in Huntington Beach" is because there is a Wintersburg, Arizona, that sometimes gets confused with this history due to the confinement camps being in Arizona. Seemed to be the best way to fix that.

We do want the other page "Historic Wintersburg" (a temporary page set up by the National Trust before we were named one of America's 11 Most Endangered) merged into "Historic Wintersburg in Huntington Beach", which has all the information from that old page but is more comprehensive and regularly updated.

Thanks for your help! M. Urashima — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mary Urashima (talk • contribs) 22:39, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi, there are definitely sufficient references now, so I will remove that tag. The lead section could use some expanding, so reviewing WP:LEAD may be helpful. As far as the unclear citation style, WP:Citation templates has some good examples to help make them more consistent. Good point on the Wintersburg, Arizona and how the title disambiguates which Wintersburg. I'm not real good at merging articles, so someone else will probably do that. I'm also going to shoot off an email to you soon. Best, Bahooka (talk) 02:11, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you!

The Wikipedia Library

Call for Volunteers

The Wikipedia Library is expanding, and we need your help! With only a couple of hours per week, you can make a big difference in helping editors get access to reliable sources and other resources. Sign up for one of the following roles:

• Account coordinators help distribute research accounts to editors.
• Partner coordinators seek donations from new partners.
• Outreach coordinators reach out to the community through blog posts, social media, and newsletters or notifications.
• Technical coordinators advise on building tools to support the library's work.

Sign up to help here :)

Delivered on behalf of The Wikipedia Library by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:16, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Caltech

Hi,

On List of California Institute of Technology people SunnyvaleCentrist keeps adding enormous amount of redlinks (people without Wikipedia articles). I saw that you attempted to fix it. I removed the redlinks. Please keep an eye on this article. Thanks--Dolly Cao (talk) 12:35, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Thomas S. Monson

I requested that they put the Semi-protecion back on Thomas S. Monson at Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Thomas_S._Monson. Hopefully they will. You might want to chime in also, but it's up to you.--- ARTEST4ECHO^(Talk)

Books and Bytes - Issue 12

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 12, May-June 2015
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs), Nikkimaria (talk · contribs)

• New donations - Taylor & Francis, Science, and three new French-language resources
• Expansion into new languages, including French, Finnish, Turkish, and Farsi
• Spotlight: New partners for the Visiting Scholar program
• American Library Association Annual meeting in San Francisco

Read the full newsletter

The Interior 15:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

PC reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:32, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Looking for advice on article

Hi. I wrote an article (not submitted to be published yet) and I am hoping you and others would take a look at it to make sure it works well. I tried to follow the instructions of asking for a peer review on the article's "Talk page" but I can only find my user talk page.

Any advice would help immensely.

Thanks!

Comm Master (talk) 18:44, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Comm Master, you may also want to check out Wikipedia:Your first article. I reviewed the draft of your article in your sandbox. Please try to find articles about LBSFCU in publications such as newspapers (possibly the Press-Telegram) or trade press such as CU Times or CU Journal. Adding some info from secondary sources such as newspapers/magazines would help establish notability. When you actually publish the article, you will see a tab for the article talk page. If you are an employee of the credit union, you will also want to read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Good luck! Bahooka (talk) 02:42, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks.

I didn't notice that I accidentally put back the party affiliation in one of my edits.ExecutiveWashington (talk) 02:49, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

No problem, I think it is okay now. Bahooka (talk) 02:51, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

The Surfaris Updates

Hello Bahooka, thank you for your interest in updating content on The Surfaris band page. Not sure why you found the links to the bands album pages on the iTunes website unappropriate for Wikipedia. Many of the bands fans are very interested in the bands music not only for personal enjoyment but for it's historical relevance to American pop culture. Wipe Out, a song written and performed by the Surfaris, is one of the most influential used songs worldwide by band leaders and music educators, particularly when teaching drums, guitar, or bass. Access to the correctly and legally published content linked to all Surfaris albums is a public service. Thank you for your understanding. Deven Berryhill — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devenberryhill (talk • contribs) 01:14, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with specific policies and guidelines. You may want to review WP:NOTADVERTISING and WP:ELNO on why links to sales sites like iTunes should not be included. Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 05:16, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Bahooka, again, thank you for your concern. The Surfaris page has not been updated substantially by anyone in years. The content updated was factually based upon published materials, copy write, and approved publishing content. We'd appreciate your support of the modest updates are neutral and factual. Due to the age of the band (53 years old) and the historical context, the links to itunes etc. are more of a public service.

Sorry, but not allowed on this encyclopedia. Please stop adding the links. If you would like to discuss it more with a broader audience, explain on the article talk page why you think the iTunes links comply with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 17:42, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Help in understanding certain edit points

Thanks for the information of my talk page. I'm not exactly sure how to respond here because I'm still new to the Wiki system and editing. The only reason I'm making these slight changes is from my understanding of your system, I need to make 10 updates before I'm granted certain access. The main reason for even creating this account is to make sure our track's information is up-to-date, especially when it comes to logos and dates. In particular for the Daytona International Speedway page and all of our events (Rolex 24 Hours At DAYTONA, and DAYTONA 500 being the two largest). If I'm able to update that information, it would be much appreciated. I wouldn't consider making sure the information and logos are current a "conflict of interest". Having out-of-date info may lead our facility's fans to misinformation.

As to the quote I tried to remove from 24 Hours of Daytona, "Motor Sport reported: "For their first 24-hour race the basic organization was good, but the various officials in many cases were out of touch, childish and lacked the professional touch which one now finds at Watkins Glen." I don't understand how that is relevant to the event's history and that quote is one person's opinion, not a fact about the race. It also comes of as somewhat slander for the event itself. If that quote must remain, sobeit. The logo for that event is not current and I'm trying to make enough small edits to have access to upload the new event logo.

Thanks!

Mattvinson (talk) 13:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC)mattvinson

The best first step would be to read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Items like correcting the slope of the track is helpful, but the best way if you have a conflict of interest is to propose an edit on the article talk page. Then, someone unrelated to the subject can post the edit. That includes the removal of sourced content like that quote. Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 15:24, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

So what if nobody checks the event's Talk page? Do I just have to hope someone goes through and checks or do people "subscribe" to certain pages are alerted or anything like that? Thanks for the help! Mattvinson (talk) 16:46, 05 October 2015 (UTC)mattvinson

Hi Mattvinson, it looks like 46 people have Daytona International Speedway on their watchlist, and 54 people have 24 Hours of Daytona on their watchlist, so it is likely someone will see it within a few days. If not, check out Template:Request edit which will make your desired edit visible to more editors. I think you will find other editors pretty helpful. Bahooka (talk) 21:14, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 13

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 13, August-September 2015
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs), Nikkimaria (talk · contribs)

• New donations - EBSCO, IMF, more newspaper archives, and Arabic resources
• Expansion into new languages, including Viet and Catalan
• Spotlight: Elsevier partnership garners controversy, dialogue
• Conferences: PKP, IFLA, upcoming events

Read the full newsletter

The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

October 2015

(removed notice to avoid being flagged)

NottNott, I don't think you intended this notice for me. The only edit I've made lately was this one removing an unsourced POV edit. Best, Bahooka (talk) 20:04, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

How the heck did this end up on your talk page!? I must have accidentally warned you with no reversion or something, but why? Haha, no worries :) ~ NottNott talk|contrib 20:11, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Bahooka (talk) 20:14, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Rollback

I have granted the "rollbacker" permission to your account. After a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, contact me and I will remove it. Good luck and thanks. – Gilliam (talk) 13:51, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the added permissions. Bahooka (talk) 15:10, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

philosophy of accounting

Hi,

I've realised that you've been deleting my contents in the page philosophy of accounting specifically the 'enron scandal part'

You described as it being irrelevant.

Yet I think Enron scandal is one of the most famous incidents which involves the issue of ethical accounting and is highly relevant

Your thought? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony0117 (talk • contribs) 15:50, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

It would be best to have this discussion at the article talk page at Talk:Philosophy of accounting so more editors can weigh in. But no, unless there is a reliable published source specifically tying Enron to philosophy of accounting, that example should not be in this particular article IMO. Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 15:57, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

as you have read in my user talk page, i m editting the philosophy of accounting page for the school assignment. Please stop deleting the content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony0117 (talk • contribs)

That is not how Wikipedia works. You don't get to add in inappropriate content in an article just because of a school assignment. Keep discussing on article talk page. Bahooka (talk) 14:11, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Why did you delete my Muscle Car Cobra reference?

Just out of curiosity, why did you have to delete my reference as to the Cobra being a Muscle Car? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muscle Car Driver (talk • contribs) 01:57, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

There was no published classification of the Cobra as being a muscle car. I believe it is more frequently classified as a sports car. You may want to discuss this at the article talk page (see Talk:AC Cobra) to get further input from other editors. Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 02:02, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I sent a message at the Cobra talk. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:14, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Perfect. I just commented there. Hopefully more editors will chime in. Bahooka (talk) 02:19, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 14

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 14, October-November 2015
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs), Nikkimaria (talk · contribs)

• New donations - Gale, Brill, plus Finnish and Farsi resources
• Open Access Week recap, and DOIs, Wikipedia, and scholarly citations
• Spotlight: 1Lib1Ref - a citation drive for librarians

Read the full newsletter

The Interior, via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:12, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Athletes Huntington Beach

Does this constitute a qualified Wikipedia reference 9I am new to Wikipedia and struggling):

https://books.google.com/books?id=k0u6BwAAQBAJ&pg=PA81&lpg=PA81&dq=huntington+beach+bill+green+hammer+throw&source=bl&ots=kmx1foeBkD&sig=uBA-t-aphSS6pHK_DFDOu_A-_z4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi1xayB4f_JAhVQ8GMKHYSUAH8Q6AEIJDAC#v=onepage&q=huntington%20beach%20bill%20green%20hammer%20throw&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.8.177.213 (talk) 00:00, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes! Thank you for finding that. In fact, I will help you out and add the reference to the Huntington Beach article. Wikipedia can be a little tricky at first, but the rules are there for a reason and we eventually get it. Best, Bahooka (talk) 00:17, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

This is ridiculous, you wont allow the fact that he has moved back to Huntington Beach because the book is now a dated reference? Bill Green is my Dad, there is no question as to whether his return is factual. You have 12 other athletes on the list with no reference at all, half the list. What kind of control freak exercise is this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.8.177.213 (talk) 16:17, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Please click and read WP:Verifiability, WP:Original research, WP:BLP, and WP:COI. Those policies and guidelines explain why information needs to have a reference. The other athletes hopefully have citations at their own articles that connect them with Huntington Beach. Sorry if you don't like Wikipedia rules, but calm down and learn how this site works. Bahooka (talk) 16:29, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

By the way, the years that a person lives in a city are rarely, if ever, included in city articles. It's just not important to an article about a city. So even if you did have a reference, another editor is going to remove it. Look at other city articles and see how the notable people section looks. Bahooka (talk) 16:34, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2