Misplaced Pages

News for February from your Misplaced Pages 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

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 Misplaced Pages Library

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

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

Read the full newsletter

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 Misplaced Pages'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!

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 Misplaced Pages) added or subtracted by your edit. See Misplaced Pages:Added or removed characters. Bahooka (talk) 16:53, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Friends

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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages).

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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, Misplaced Pages Visiting Scholar news, and more

Read the full newsletter

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
• Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages Library: New Account Coordinators Needed

Hi Books & Bytes recipients: The Misplaced Pages 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: Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources for the use of forum posts as a reference, Misplaced Pages:No original research (particularly WP:SYNTHESIS) for stating your own conclusion about falsely and erroneously claiming something, Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest for being the admin of the forum you are using to support your edits (per this edit that you blanked, and Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. Bahooka (talk) 19:16, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 7

The Misplaced Pages 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

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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages'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/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, Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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  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 Misplaced Pages 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

New Misplaced Pages Library Accounts Now Available (November 2014)

Hello Wikimedians!

The Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages projects: sign up today!
--The Misplaced Pages Library Team 23:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

You can host and coordinate signups for a Misplaced Pages 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!

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#Table under Application Selection and discuss there. Right now the table fails the Misplaced Pages: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#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 Misplaced Pages 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#Table under Application Selection. Bahooka (talk) 15:49, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

New Misplaced Pages Library Accounts Now Available (December 2014)

Hello Wikimedians!

The Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages projects: sign up today!
--The Misplaced Pages Library Team.00:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

You can host and coordinate signups for a Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages), 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  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  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)

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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages to promote your favorite church. talk→ WPPilot  14:21, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

The churches you just listed do not have Misplaced Pages 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, Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith. Bahooka (talk) 23:08, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

December 2014

Please be particularly aware that Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages Library and Persian Misplaced Pages" - a Persian Misplaced Pages editor talks about their experiences with database access in Iran, writing on the Persian project and the JSTOR partnership

Read the full newsletter

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not to get a better idea of Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages works. Your expectations do not appear to be in alignment with the project's approach. Look in detail at Misplaced Pages:Five pillars. Bahooka (talk) 16:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

re: uc davis

Re: this edit -- 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 Misplaced Pages:College and university article guidelines and, as you have a Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages'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.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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages: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)

Bullshit

What the fuck are you annoying my edits on Misplaced Pages? Such a bullshit you're bitch! Misplaced Pages is free to everyone for edit asshole!! (anonymous) 06:30 28 February 2015 (UTC)