User talk:Bahooka/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

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:

• Introduction to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

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)

"Another" account? No, AN account.

No, not "another" account; AN account. These are not two accounts, because remember: IPs aren't counted as accounts. What are you trying to tell me: that once someone edits as an IP-only, they can never edit as someone with an account? If you edit as an IP-only address, are you never allowed to have an account and are stuck in "IP Land" forever, because if you do then it looks like "socking"? Yes, I have an account now and have started editing with that, and made it clear in one of the summaries. So what? And besides, what supposed business is that of yours, non-admin? Why is a non-admin. watching that, anyway? 75.162.211.81 (talk) 02:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Learn how Wikipedia works and get the chip off your shoulder. Bahooka (talk) 04:46, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think you are going to last that long on Wikipedia with your combative attitude, but in case you do I also recommend you read the Wikipedia:Civility policy. Good luck, Bahooka (talk) 05:15, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. With the hope of good faith efforts to contribute constructively, good luck. ChristensenMJ (talk) 05:20, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

LOL, there's a supposed "chip" on my shoulder just for having an account now and expecting not to be falsely called a "sockpuppet" for it? Ahah, that makes "total" sense. No, bahooka, you are the one with the chip on your shoulder just for: 1. falsely saying I was, and 2. for having the crazy idea that IP-only editors somehow couldn't get an account without being viewed as a sock. So based on that right there, I obviously know how the Wikipedia works better than you do. Therefore you should be reading the civility policy, since your crazy false assumptions are the uncivil content here that gives you the combative attitude; not mine. And there's still a question that I asked you before that you haven't answered. Are you just going to be uncivil there too by ignoring it?

As for you, @ChristensenMJ: you should read the part that talks about assuming good faith. Every edition I have made to an article here on the Wikipedia is meant to be constructive and is therefore in good faith. Just because you don't like an edition someone else has made doesn't mean it's "not in good faith."

75.162.241.83 (talk) 21:18, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I did not say that a user that edits initially under just an IP address cannot establish an account. That happens all the time. What I was indicating was that once you establish an account, you should not be going back and forth between the named account and an anonymous IP address. Doing so can give the impression that there is more than one editor, even though there is not. I hope that clarified my comment. Bahooka (talk) 21:36, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, bahooka, you were not clear with that before, but you are now. But the sock rules even say that it's okay for one person to have more than one account as long as they don't break the rules with the multiple accounts (or, I assume, using a second or more account to make it look like the first one isn't breaking a rule, such as for generating a false "consensus" to get around being considered as edit-warring). How about answering my other question now? 75.162.241.83 (talk) 21:41, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

75.162.241.83, you have misconstrued what I am talking about regarding good faith. It's irrelevant about whether somebody makes an edit or whether I like it. I generally always believe people are putting forth good faith efforts to make something better. The good faith I am addressing is more related to the civility that Bahooka has tried to recommend. Often, edit summaries shared have been caustic, condescending, belittling or lack civility and then you don't let it rest or seek genuine efforts to accept or reach consensus. Aside from a block you've received for this type of behavior, it's also shown here, where a good faith editor was not treated respectfully on 17 October, or here - where you didn't simply make revisions you felt were helpful on 22 December, but have to continue to note that they were "moronic errors." That doesn't address efforts to demand that the page be left alone because somehow it was fine before you came and therefore it should remain as edited. ChristensenMJ (talk) 21:45, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

(ec)75.162.241.83, please don't add to your comment after someone has already responded. First of all, not answering a question is not uncivil nor against policy. Second, if you are wondering why a non-admin asks about policy, that occurs all the time on Wikipedia and editors routinely help those who have admin tools to properly assess and, if necessary, deal with the situation. That closes our conversation here. Bahooka (talk) 21:48, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

No, that doesn't close this discusssion, bahooka, because you never gave me a chance to ask @ChristensenMJ: how some of those were supposed bits of "disrespect." Besides that, we actually do have the right to edit our own writings on a talk page any time we want. I can't help that someone else was already answering before I was finished making my new reply make better sense. Besides that, you had an edit-conflict yourself, I see. And yeah, deliberately ignoring a or refusing to answer a simple question that is about me, which is _my business_ since it's about me, is rude, and what's rude is uncivil. But at least you did try to answer that question now. Why weren't you willing to before? And even though you were just trying to be helpfully watchful as a non-admin. by being watchful like you described, why did you ask me the question in such a heightened way that made it sound like you kind of took it to the level of nosiness (I can't think of a more civil way to write that) that would really just be more appropriate for an admin. to have?

So christensen, on the list of BYU buildings I said "moronic errors" because there was no specific editor I was pointing at. And then I looked at all those ones from October 17 and then the other one and have found no "disrespect," as you call it, in any one of those. Maybe you will please show me how you figure any of those are supposedly "disrespectful," huh?

75.162.241.83 (talk) 22:00, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

IP editor, if you want to have a discussion with ChristensenMJ, then either take it to his talk page or the article talk page. That conversation doesn't belong on my talk page. Anything further will be deleted. Bahooka (talk) 23:58, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

List of St. John's University alumni

You might want to do a bit of checking before removing obviously notably people from lists just because they are not wikilinked. I managed to save almost all of the people you deleted from this list just by looking to see if they had existing articles. It's not as if this was a high school alumni list full of dubious entries. It was a university with a law school, and you were deleting judges, politicians, senior executives of major companies, etc. Meters (talk) 21:22, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

You are right. In retrospect I should have slowed down on that one. Noted for the future. Thank you for taking the time to go through that. Best, Bahooka (talk) 21:24, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

We all make edits that could have been handled better. Good editors learn from the experience, so its no big deal as far as I am concerned. One of us should let other editor know that he should be linking those additions. Meters (talk) 21:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I'll notify them (referencing Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking to help them out) as I was the one who reverted their edits. Bahooka (talk) 21:38, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

San Diego State University College of Business

Hi, Bahooka, I work for SDSU and have been updating the college's page which had been poorly maintained in the past. I seem to have the same issue that the editor from St. John's University had in that you are deleting the names of distinguished alumni because they don't have their own Wikipedia page, yet they are corporate officers in some extremely significant organizations (founding CFO of Volcom and founding CFO of Qualcom, for example). You apologized to the editor from St. John's for doing this and I hope you will allow me the same courtesy you gave the St. John's editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slfinch (talk • contribs) 00:53, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

The individuals you listed are unlikely to have their own articles, but I will wait for awhile. I'm glad you are now discussing your edits. You have a serious conflict of interest as an employee of the college, so I suggest you put your recommended edits on the article talk page for an uninvolved editor to post.As posted on your talk page, please read WP:COI. Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 04:36, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Maybe I'm not understanding this. Is there a policy by Wikipedia that says that "distinguished alumni" of any given university needs to have their own page before they can be listed as such? If so, please pass that along to me so that I can share it with other posters here at the university. Additionally, since I'm very new to this, could you share with me what the "article talk page" is? I have no problem doing this, but need more information before I can move forward.

Also, according to the AP Style guide, all academic subjects with the exception of proper names like "English 102" or "French 347" are to be put in lower case. I am following those rules as laid out by the style guide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slfinch (talk • contribs) 17:55, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm out of town, so my ability to respond is limited right now. Regarding notable (the term distinguished is not used), see WP:WTAF and multiple discussions at WP:UNIGUIDE. The talk page can be found at Talk:San Diego State University College of Business Administration. As far as a style guide, please use Wikipedia's WP:Manual of Style. Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 04:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I did follow Wiki's style guide and while they don't address directly, they do not capitalize academic subjects in their example:

Institutions[edit] Main page: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters § Institutions Names of particular institutions are proper names and require capitals, but generic words for institutions (university, college, hospital, high school) do not. For example: The university offers programs in arts and sciences, but The University of Delhi offers .... The word the at the start of a title is usually uncapitalized, but follow the institution's own usage (a degree from the University of Sydney; but researchers at The Ohio State University). Similar considerations apply to political or geographical units, such as cities and islands: The city has a population of 55,000, but The City of Smithville ... (an official name). (Note also the use of the City to refer to the City of London.)

Also, I'm still not seeing anywhere in Wiki's guidelines where distinguished (or notable) alumni must have their own Wiki page to be listed. At WP:UNIGUIDE it says:

Noted people – This section should give a sense of the extent to which persons with well-known deeds or highly significant accomplishments are or have been associated with the school (as by attendance there or by being on staff or faculty). For most schools this might take the form of a list of people meeting Wikipedia's notability standards (each with perhaps a very brief descriptive phrase), where such a list would not be excessively long. For very old, very large, or very prestigious schools it may be more appropriate to use categories ("Alumni of", "Faculty of", etc.) instead, limiting the explicit list to very well-known persons (heads of state, historical figures, etc.) and adding a narrative summary of statistics on such things as Nobel Prizes, other prestigious awards, and so on.

So if I'm missing something, please do pass it along. I do want to follow the guidelines set forth by Wikipedia as much as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slfinch (talk • contribs) 19:48, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I really don't have any comment on capitalization beyond what is in the Manual of Style. As far as the noted people and not adding people without articles, Wikipedia:Write the article first is a good essay on the subject. Many colleges and universities have a laundry list of alumni, some of whom are notable and some who are not. The list of alumni doesn't really add anything to a person's understanding of the university. It is usually just a way to add WP:BOOSTERISM to the article. I hope this helps. That's about all I can do. Thanks and good luck, Bahooka (talk) 21:50, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 15

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 15, December-January 2016
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs), Nikkimaria (talk · contribs), UY Scuti (talk · contribs)

• New donations - Ships, medical resources, plus Arabic and Farsi resources
• #1lib1ref campaign summary and highlights
• New branches and coordinators

Read the full newsletter

The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:19, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

What did i do wrong

Whats wrong with the information i submitted for the Jaguar F Type Coupe R. I was going to separate Claimed manufacturers curb weight to actual curb weights where the car was weighed by Automotive Magazines.

http://www.caranddriver.com/jaguar/f-type http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2015-jaguar-f-type-v-6-s-coupe-first-drive-review http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2015-jaguar-f-type-v-6-s-coupe-test-review http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/2016-jaguar-f-type-r-coupe-vs-2016-mercedes-amg-gt-s-2015-porsche-911-carrera-gts-comparison-test http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2015-jaguar-f-type-r-coupe-test-review http://www.motortrend.com/news/2014-jaguar-f-type-v8-s-first-test/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gen7Corvette (talk • contribs) 17:35, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

The main thing we all want you to do is to stop removing the spacing in the infobox. Also, the articles only need one reference for measurements like weight, which in the case of automobile articles comes from the manufacturer rather than magazines for Wikipedia purposes. But really, you've been asked a couple of times to stop messing with the infoboxes. Bahooka (talk) 17:44, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Ferrari F430

Whats wrong with what i did for the Ferrrari F430. The listed curb weight from manufacturers and real world world curb weight are to different things the real world curb weight are the listed curb weight for when the instrumented test are taking place and whats wrong with putting the f430 Scuderia curb weight in the box its a completely different model. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gen7Corvette (talk • contribs) 17:55, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Stop changing the infobox format. Bahooka (talk) 17:58, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 16

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 16, February-March 2016
by The Interior (talk · contribs), UY Scuti (talk · contribs)

• New donations - science, humanities, and video resources
• Using hashtags in edit summaries - a great way to track a project
• A new cite archive template, a new coordinator, plus conference and Visiting Scholar updates
• Metrics for the Wikipedia Library's last three months

Read the full newsletter

The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Johnny Rockets Edits

Hi -

I trust this note finds you well. Johnny Rockets recently went through a brand re-launch that includes a new logo, look and brand positioning. This page should be updated to match the new brand direction.

http://www.johnnyrockets.com/about-us/press-center/johnny-rockets-celebrates-its-30th-anniversary-with-the-unveiling-of-a-brand-refresh.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnyrockets86 (talk • contribs) 18:32, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Do you work for them? If so, you will want to read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. I'm aware of the change, but do not remove sourced content. Rewrite it as historical content if you want it changed. Wikipedia is not an advertising site. Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 18:41, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

BYU's Honor Code

Friend,

I have created a section on the talk page for BYU's Honor Code. I understand that the controversy surrounding that Code may stir passions among some editors, and we wouldn't want people to make wholesale deletions without achieving consensus first. That behavior might be construed as pushing a POV -- or worse. I hope you will join in the discussion on the talk page.

Best regards,

GetSomeUtah (talk) 10:31, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

The amount of content was too detailed for the general article on BYU. I didn't delete it, but rather moved it to Church Educational System Honor Code, a more appropriate article for that amount of detail. As a new Wikipedia user, you may also want to read WP:BRD about getting consensus before readding deleted content. Bahooka (talk) 14:43, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the prompt reply and explanation. Regards, GetSomeUtah (talk) 01:38, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Bugatti Chiron

Bugatti Chiron is a hyper car not a sports car Quitwhisper2004 (talk) 12:38, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

The classification of hypercar and supercar are not used on Wikipedia per WP:CARCLASS. Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 14:51, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Reformed Egyptian

What's wrong with adding a category reflecting the mainstream PoV? I've brought it up at WP:FTN. Doug Weller talk 19:36, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, I've commented at FTN. Bahooka (talk) 05:29, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 17

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 17, April-May 2016
by The Interior, Ocaasi, UY Scuti, Sadads, and Nikkimaria

• New donations this month - a German-language legal resource
• Wikipedia referals to academic citations - news from CrossRef and WikiCite2016
• New library stats, WikiCon news, a bot to reveal Open Access versions of citations, and more!

Read the full newsletter

The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:36, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Growth of religion

The article needs to be polished, per WP:NEWSORG, WP:NOT#JOURNALISM, WP:NOTSTATS and WP:NOCRYSTAL. I removed news organizations, blogs, et. al. unreliable material, and redundant repetitions. The issue is being discussed here.--151.36.36.57 (talk) 20:39, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 18

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 18, June–July 2016
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi, Samwalton9, UY Scuti, and Sadads

• New donations - Edinburgh University Press, American Psychological Association, Nomos (a German-language database), and more!
• Spotlight: GLAM and Wikidata
• TWL attends and presents at International Federation of Library Associations conference, meets with Association of Research Libraries
• OCLC wins grant to train librarians on Wikimedia contribution

Read the full newsletter

The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Need a outside opinion

I was hoping you could take a look at a few articles where I find myself going back forth with another editor (who has a history of not understanding BRD): Holy Spirit in Christianity and God in Christianity. IMO the other editor is defending some text that is a unique, if not esoteric, definition of "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit" and going beyond what can be directly supported by the cited sources. In the first article, the other editor is also defending recent changes by another editor that introduce significant trinitarian/Catholic POV. Anyways, if you could take a look at the recent edits and possible weigh in or provide feedback, I'd much appreciate it. Thanks. --FyzixFighter (talk) 15:30, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 September 2016

Requesting inclusion/addition of lawsuit filed in January 2016: Lipscomb versus ITT Tech

Link to Huffington Post article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/davidhalperin/blockbuster-lawsuit-claim_b_9040584.html

Link to Lawsuit: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/ittsuit.pdf

Link to Marketwatch article: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/at-itt-tech-a-greatest-hits-of-abuses-attorney-2016-01-21

Link to New York Times article: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/08/business/downfall-of-itt-technical-institutes-was-a-long-time-in-the-making.html

96.226.49.240 (talk) 02:08, 14 September 2016 (UTC)RDL 96.226.49.240 (talk) 02:08, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Not done: this is the talk page for communicating with the user Bahooka (talk · contribs). Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. Topher385 (talk) 02:19, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 19

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 19, September–October 2016
by Nikkimaria, Sadads and UY Scuti

• New and expanded donations - Foreign Affairs, Open Edition, and many more
• New Library Card Platform and Conference news
• Spotlight: Fixing one million broken links

Read the full newsletter

19:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Bahooka. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

"upscale" vandal

Hey I saw that you were previously involved in an ANI for 74.76.67.208 and it looks like they are back again, doing the same types of edits. I'm not familiar enough with what happened but do you think it warrants another go round there? Looks like it was also part of an SPI as well. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Thanks for the heads up. I just posted at WP:AIV to stop that IP's disruptive edits. Best, Bahooka (talk) 18:12, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 20

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 20, November-December 2016
by Nikkimaria (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), UY Scuti (talk · contribs), Samwalton9 (talk · contribs)

• Partner resource expansions
• New search tool for finding TWL resources
• #1lib1ref 2017
• Wikidata Visiting Scholar

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Brachney

Hello Bahooka,

This is Brachney. Not sure if this is the right place to leave a message, but trust you'll get it nevertheless. I have a few concerns. 1. First, why is this paragraph being edited out. The source is Hotchner, who is cited elsewhere in the Hemingway article. Why edit this out? This is a critical bit of information on Hemingway's life, and absolutely reverses the conventional view of his life. You really want to stand behind political suppression of information? 2. Why am I guilty of an Edit War and not the other party? 3. Aren't we volunteering to advance truth, or do we have an different agenda? Your input into this dispute will be highly welcome. Brachney — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brachney (talk • contribs) 18:21, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your questions. A section discussing your edit has already been created by another editor at Talk:Ernest Hemingway#Recent edits, so you can discuss your edit there and explain why you feel it appropriate and not duplicative with the preceding paragraph. As to why I posted a warning on your talk page and not that of other editors, please read WP:3RR and WP:BRD. Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 18:33, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 21

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 21, January-March 2017
by Nikkimaria (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), UY Scuti (talk · contribs), Samwalton9 (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs)

• #1lib1ref 2017
• Wikipedia Library User Group
• Wikipedia + Libraries at Wikimedia Conference 2017
• Spotlight: Library Card Platform

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Jensen Healey

Hi Bahooka,

Two weeks on and it seems no-one else has an opinion strong enough to weigh in. How about a compromise - one of us re-instates it but with specific models listed in the tables and a note at the bottom of the section stating that the acceleration and production numbers are not a reflection of value or desirability.

Best Regards John. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.64.26 (talk) 12:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for considering the compromise, but I really feel that information doesn't belong there. And, it fails the verifiability policy. The next step should be getting a third opinion per WP:3O. I may request that opinion in the next couple of days. Bahooka (talk) 13:40, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I really feel that it does belong there, so I guess that a third opinion per WP:3O is the way to go. Best Regards John. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.64.26 (talk) 11:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 22

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 22, April-May 2017

• New and expanded research accounts
• Global branches update
• Spotlight: OCLC Partnership
• Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:35, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 23

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 23, June-July 2017

• Library card
• User Group update
• Global branches update
• Spotlight: Combating misinformation, fake news, and censorship
• Bytes in brief

Chinese, Arabic and Yoruba versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:03, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 24

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 24, August-September 2017

• User Group update
• Global branches update
  • Star Coordinator Award - last quarter's star coordinator: User:Csisc
• Wikimania Birds of a Feather session roundup
• Spotlight: Wiki Loves Archives
• Bytes in brief

Arabic, Kiswahili and Yoruba versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:53, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Bahooka. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 25

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 25, October – November 2017

• OAWiki & #1Lib1Ref
• User Group update
• Global branches update
• Spotlight: Research libraries and Wikimedia
• Bytes in brief

Arabic, Korean and French versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

MOS:COMMA

Hi there. What I'm reading on MOS:COMMA is:

In geographical references that include multiple levels of subordinate divisions (e.g., city, state/province, country), a comma separates each element and follows the last element unless followed by other punctuation... the last element is treated as parenthetical.

Correct: He set October 1, 2011, as the deadline for Chattanooga, Oklahoma, to meet his demands. Incorrect: He set October 1, 2011 as the deadline for Chattanooga, Oklahoma to meet his demands.

WP's own comma article makes the same point with the Chicago Manual's "The plane landed in Kampala, Uganda, that evening." How does that not apply to "She received an R.N. degree in Calgary, Alberta, in 1970"? Regards, Moscow Mule (talk) 22:08, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Moscow Mule. I'm going to rethink it. It looked incorrect with all the markup. If not already done, I will self revert. I see where you are coming from now. I'm still not sure if it is correct in that article, but possibly. Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 22:12, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

My thanks to you. Greatly appreciated. Moscow Mule (talk) 22:18, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2