User talk:Baileypalblue

Welcome!

Hello, Baileypalblue, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! - Darwinek 07:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Feel free to ask me any question if you will need. - Darwinek 14:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles

You lamented missing MfD#1 of Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles. Pleae consider participating in Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles MfD#2. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 22:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Afon Pyrddin

Baileypalblue - I don't understand why you have labelled Afon Pyrddin as being orphaned - it has around 18-20 links within Wikipedia. Yes it can be expanded and mor links added but what criteria are you using?
Geopersona (talk) 05:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Geopersona, I have replied on your talk page. Thanks, Baileypalblue (talk) 06:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Xerochrysum subundulatum

I reverted your orphan tag on this article because it is a stub. By definition, stubs are deficient in links, references, information, making additional tags not needed. --KP Botany (talk) 03:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DRV on Cherryade

You might be interested. Thanks, Majorly talk 21:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFC

I changed the proposal to RFC on a merger here: Talk:Bahá'ís Under the Provisions of the Covenant#Merge. Please comment, as it is kind of a mess right now. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 02:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/delete vs. merge/redirect

Hi. In a comment on the Winfrey / Obama AfD, you mentioned something about merge/delete being a violation of GFDL. I simply cannot follow you on that one. I've asked on the AfD as well, but I'd love for you to try and explain in case I'm missing something important. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)}^{• I'm watching this page so just reply to me right here!} 20:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded on the AfD page. Please let me know if you'd like further clarification of my position, or if you think I'm wrong. Best wishes, Baileypalblue (talk) 20:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your response there and I actually think you're right, I just hadn't thought about it that way and evidently hadn't particularly noticed that section of policy. Thanks! -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 20:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to have been of use, and I'm glad you agree with me. I wasn't aware of the issue until someone else pointed it out to me on an AfD. Baileypalblue (talk) 21:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DJ Tilt

I'm not sure if that's allowed. The only way that I know of AFDs being reopened is through a DRV, which I don't think would apply to a Withdrawn nomination. If you had voted Delete on the first AFD, I wouldn't have been able to close it. What is the problem with creating a new AFD? MrKIA11 (talk) 12:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, closing editors have leeway to relist AfDs if they are convinced it's necessary -- per Wikipedia:DRV#Principal_purpose_.E2.80.94_challenging_deletion_debates informal dispute resolution with the closer should occur prior to any DRV. I was hoping for a quick relist last night to keep the continuity of the discussion going, but no need to worry about that now. In this case, a DRV would mean even more pointless bureaucracy, so I'll just open a second AfD in eight hours if I haven't heard from you. Baileypalblue (talk) 19:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So do you still want me to reopen it then? MrKIA11 (talk) 00:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about relisting it on today's AfD log -- that should work fine. Baileypalblue (talk) 00:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

Well done. Un school 06:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FreeLinc

I added this reference from Urgent Communications, a reliable source, to the FreeLinc article. You may want to revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FreeLinc. -- Eastmain (talk) 01:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michigan Elk

 Sir or maam why did you delete this article. I am extremely frustrated by this. I worked very hard on that article and you just up and deleted it! I am going to be forced to take avasive action if you do not at least reply.
                 Michigamee (talk) 20:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)MichigameeMichigamee (talk) 20:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for contacting me, I have responded on your talk page. Best wishes, Baileypalblue (talk) 21:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

avasive action? wats dat?

Bernie 189.129.200.44 (talk) 01:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Bernie, I didn't understand your post; please feel free to clarify. Also, I recommend you create an account. Best wishes, Baileypalblue (talk) 05:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BUPC

You previously responded to an RFC and the same page has another issue. Please comment on Talk:Leland Jensen#2009-02-24 and Talk:Bahá'ís Under the Provisions of the Covenant#2009-02-24. On the last one, just follow point #3 if you don't want to get too involved. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 16:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Procedure for page renamings

Hi. Please clarify for me what I did wrong when requesting that DeWalt, Missouri City, Texas be moved to Dewalt, Missouri City, Texas. Contrary to language in the boxed notice at top of that entry's discussion page, it WAS noted at Wikipedia:Requested moves. In my judgment I couldn't imagine that such locality-name spelling correction would be controversial (just to be sure, I checked first in the Handbook of Texas [1], which is already an external link on the page), so per the guidelines I didn't see the need to put anything on the discussion page. Note that there are already pages with both spellings, so what will end up happening (I hope) is that the main page will by styled Dewalt and the redirect page DeWalt -- a switch from how they are listed now. Ultimately I think a disambiguity page should be created because there is at least one other entry (a person) using that word. And note that the main DeWalt entry is a power tool manufacturer. Thanks. Irv (talk) 06:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for contacting me, I have responded at your talk page. Best wishes, Baileypalblue (talk) 07:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification on procedures, and see ongoing dialog on the requested name change itself. (It looks as if I'll probably be withdrawing my request after additional local research.) Irv (talk) 19:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uggg, misclick

I just rolled back your edit to WP:RM by a slip of the mouse and rolled back my rollback about a millisecond later. Pure misclick. Sorry.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, thanks for keeping me informed :) Baileypalblue (talk) 15:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Old Man River

When you tried to fix the cut-paste move, you moved the entire history of the dab page over rather than just the part about the musician. In this case you should've temporarily deleted the part of the history you didn't want to move as I have done. Please keep it in mind for the future. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for cleaning the situation up -- I'm still a bit confused, but all's well that ends well. Baileypalblue (talk) 16:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Ace Of Aces

Hi! I left you a comment at Talk:Ace Of Aces#Requested move. Thanks, Jafeluv (talk) 10:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note, I've replied at article talk. Baileypalblue (talk) 07:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Schoodic Peninsula

Hi. Since you added the bulk of the content to the Schoodic Peninsula article, I would like to ask you how it is related to the Schoodic Peninsula Historic District. Do you think there is enough distinct content for two separate articles? --Polaron | Talk 21:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Polaron, I have replied at Talk:Schoodic_Peninsula#Schoodic_Peninsula_Historic_District. Best wishes, Baileypalblue (talk) 18:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Racial disappearance

An article that you have been involved in editing, Racial disappearance , has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Racial disappearance (2nd nomination). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Robofish (talk) 14:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of 20th century earthquakes

Hi Baileypalblue,

Thanks for cleaning up the List of 20th century earthquakes article. When I created it from the existing 'USGS list' and 'other quakes not on the USGS list', I only took out the really non-notable ones, wanting to fight only one battle at a time. Actually no-one really objected at all, so I should have been bolder and thrown out the smaller ones as you now have. Cheers, Mikenorton (talk) 22:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm glad you support the changes -- I wasn't quite sure how far to prune, but I think the list looks better now. We'll see if anyone wants something different. Best wishes, Baileypalblue (talk) 01:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

please go to link to support page nominated for deletion

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pit_Bull

Evereadyo2 (talk) 13:41, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 05:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request

I know that it has been two months, but I have finally fixed what you said on WP:CITEKILL here. I would really appreciate if you responded as you brought up a lot of good points on stuff that I mainly didn't write. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dawn of the Dead, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Plague (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:23, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Amazingly cogent counterargument at Wikipedia talk:Citation overkill

Amazingly cogent counterargument at Wikipedia talk:Citation overkill. Thank you for expressing it so clearly and in-sync with the way I feel. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:22, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Baileypalblue. 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)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Baileypalblue. 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)[reply]

"Fistfight" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Fistfight and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 27#Fistfight until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:08, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Revival of WikiProject Skiing and Snowboarding

You were previously listed as a participant of WikiProject Skiing and Snowboarding, which was an inactive project until recently. It is currently being revived to continue improving content within the project scope and to conduct assessments. If you are still interested in participating, please move your name from the "Inactive Members" section to the main list on the new participants page, then helping with the revival of the project by providing any suggestions you may have and restarting work efforts. If you are no longer interested, please remove your name from the participants page completely. VarietyEditor (talk) 02:04, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]