User talk:Bahooka: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 05:42, 18 May 2014

http://media.caranddriver.com/files/chrysler-300c-srt82005-chrysler-300c-srt8-specs.pdf

+ http://media.caranddriver.com/files/chrysler-300c-srt82005-chrysler-300c-srt8-specs.pdf

+ http://media.caranddriver.com/files/chrysler-300c-srt82005-chrysler-300c-srt8-specs.pdf http://media.caranddriver.com/files/chrysler-300c-srt82005-chrysler-300c-srt8-specs.pdf

+ http://media.caranddriver.com/files/chrysler-300c-srt82005-chrysler-300c-srt8-specs.pdf

+ + http://media.caranddriver.com/files/chrysler-300c-srt82005-chrysler-300c-srt8-specs.pdf

+ http://media.caranddriver.com/files/chrysler-300c-srt82005-chrysler-300c-srt8-specs.pdf

+ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1969 Ford Mustang 199 Cobra Jet (talk • contribs) 05:14, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end.
Start a new talk topic.

Welcome!

Hello, Bahooka, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Certified Public Accountant. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Drmies (talk) 18:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Nick Turse

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Chrysler 200

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Stop

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

A Tesla Roadster for you!

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Your username

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

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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) [reply]

Fred Phelps

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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) [reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Audi

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Friends

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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