User talk:Baleywik

My fellow Wikipedians. Join Us in Striving for Excellence in Editing.Baleywik (talk) 10:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Hooray for excellence in editing! :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 19:29, 22 September 2008

Encourage perfection. Baleywik (talk) 23:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your support[edit]

Hello, I see you are an electrical engineer. I am electrical engineer myself and I've proposed a new wikiproject, Electrical Engineering. Here is the link. I would like to ask your support. Please do participate in the discussion. Thank you. Shriram (talk) 15:13, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your hard work[edit]

		The Original Barnstar
		For your contributions to Bundy standoff. KinkyLipids (talk) 05:10, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Easy on the language[edit]

Hey, I appreciate the time and effort you're putting into the Bundy article. Please though, ease off a bit on the language a bit, like your edit comment here. Technically, it wasn't vandalism by Wikipedia standards (see WP:VANDALISM). It was an absolute craptastic edit that should have been reverted but a better reasoning would have been poorly sourced and POV commentary (youtube generally isn't a reliable source). Even blanking sections, if the editor seems to have a valid reason for why they did it is not vandalism. It's a word that can incite emotions for some people, so avoiding the use of it unless it truly is vandalism is a good thing. Stay cool like you've been doing and thanks! Ravensfire (talk) 17:54, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We appreciate your feedback. You are doing a good job on the Bundy article, as well. Thank you for taking the time to contribute to Wikipedia, and also to write a personal note. Baleywik (talk) 17:58, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Moot" and being betrayed by Rick Springfield[edit]

Baleywik, you wrote "Proper cite was added...The 'no original research' argument for moving this material is moot."

I think that you intended to use the word "moot" in a way that I previous did before I ran into this video on Rick Springfield's use of the word in the song Jessie's Girl: "I wanna tell her that I love her but the point is probably moot"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTLb1_m-cGg&feature=player_detailpage#t=139

I don't think I will ever be able to forgive Rick Springfield for misleading me about "moot". Don't let him ruin your life as well! Curse you Rick Springfield! Curse you! --Wowaconia (talk) 21:54, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I got a good laugh on that one, Wowaconia. Certainly I did use " moot " as a pun, due to the reference to the legal cases. Guilty as charged! It's nice to know that you caught it, and took the time to write a nice note here :)

To quote wikipedia entry on Mootness: "In American law, a matter is moot if further legal proceedings with regard to it can have no effect, or events have placed it beyond the reach of the law. Thereby the matter has been deprived of practical significance or rendered purely academic. This is different from the ordinary British meaning of "moot", which means "debatable".

BTW, you are a stern taskmaster on cites! But, I thoroughly enjoy your rigorous approach to editing articles, and your enthusiastic discussion on the talk pages!

Baleywik (talk) 22:27, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bundy Militia[edit]

The original wikipedia Bundy Militia wikipedia article https://web.archive.org/web/20140421225137/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_militia

The original article was destroyed, but it lives on in the Wayback Machine Internet Archive.

The Bundy militia exists. They had an armed confrontation with law enforcement in April 2014.

It is a militia (domestic or private unregulated militia movement type) that has signed up members.

There are many possible cites on the existence of the Bundy militia. Here is one example documenting the existence of the militia by a reputable news organization KLAS TV News in Las Vegas, Nevada.

" The Bundy militia, who are they? " http://www.8newsnow.com/story/25286956/the-bundy-militia-who-are-they

Baleywik (talk) 01:19, 19 April 2014 (UTC) Baleywik (talk) 23:22, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Baleywik (talk) 23:23, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking of article Bundy militia[edit]

First instance of Blanking by Cwobeel - It has been noted that within a half hour, in Bundy militia, the editor ‎ Cwobeel (talk | contribs) has blanked 75% of the article, blanked 75% of the cites and references, and blanked the entire infobox. Please note that the AfD "Articles for deletion" process specifically forbids blanking of this article. We urge the restoration of the article to its pre-blanked state. The article is new, and new articles are often complex works in progress, that build up references and refine wording over a few weeks or months. It is normal procedure to tag articles with appropriate tags such as "OR" or "citation needed" rather than blanking.Baleywik (talk) 21:58, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2nd Instance of Blanking by Cwobeel - It has been noted that the editor ‎ Cwobeel (talk | contribs) has for the 2nd time, blanked 75% of the article, blanked 75% of the cites and references, blanked the entire infobox, and blanked every section title. Please note that the AfD "Articles for deletion" process specifically forbids blanking of this article. Baleywik (talk) 21:58, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re: 2nd Instance of Blanking by Cwobeel - Sorry, User:Cwobeel, but blanking -7,716 bytes out of an article that is a total of 16,778 bytes is a pure and simple attempt to gut that article. Blanking all those cites and references, blanking the entire infobox, and blanking every section title is not "editing". Such blanking contributes nothing to the article. It is simply considered destruction by the standards most wikipedia editors' use. Baleywik (talk) 23:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Re: 3nd Instance of Blanking by Cwobeel - This third instance was successful in removing most of the factual content and references from wikipedia on the subject. As a result, the whole AfD process was corrupted, resulting in the deletion of this highly notable and historic article. Baleywik (talk) 23:26, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More thanks for work on Bundy Standoff[edit]

I'm an old editor (>5k edits) who no longer logs on, and I feel slightly funny about leaving this comment from an IP address, but I really wanted to thank you and KinkyLipids for quickly turning that article from a cringe-worthy liability, into something pretty reasonable. Please consider this a text-mode barnstar. :) 173.228.54.18 (talk) 22:32, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. We appreciate the text-mode barnstar ! Baleywik (talk) 23:12, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Having just reviewed every edit from 13 Apr to 19 Apr, I am moved to also thank you for the large volume of solid editing you've done on this article. You've done a VERY good job, in my opinion. My comments above are strictly related to the separate page you created. Your editing at Bundy standoff is fully exemplary by my standards. Damn good. Eaglizard (talk) 21:48, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Raton, New Mexico[edit]

Please add reference(s) for the NEW text that you added at Raton,_New_Mexico#Geology. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 03:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your invitation. We were planning to add references to that Geology section we added on the page, as indicated by our edit note: "02:42, 4 November 2014‎ Baleywik (talk | contribs)‎ . . (12,070 bytes) (+996)‎ . . (added Geology section with K-T Boundary paragraphs. Need to add some cites for it later. Inviting other editors to expand on this section.)" Baleywik (talk) 00:43, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I missed that comment, but still you need to add references AT THE SAME TIME you add text, because most of the time people don't ever return to add refs. Thanks for taking care of it. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 01:38, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your advice. Some of us editors take a much longer term, more patient view toward the editing and cite process. Perhaps millions of Wikipedia article paragraphs exist without any reference cites whatsoever. The "citation needed" tag can be applied when there is something that just begs for verification. Baleywik (talk) 02:41, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Numerous times I've seen other editors quickly delete NEW text because it didn't have a reference. Just because text doesn't have a reference doesn't mean it will stick around forever, because I've seen people clean house on unreferenced text. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 09:35, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I can find the time to write a block of text, then I can find the time to include references at the same time. Why, because I don't want to waste far more time in a revert battle (edit war) with another editor that deleted my text. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 09:35, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Google Maps-related edits[edit]

I looked at all 5 of the references you listed for Google Maps supposed blanking of the homeless camp in San Jose, but none of them seem to support what you wrote. None of them say that Google blanked anything. The only one that even discusses Google Maps ([1]) only says that "several" (as in, not all) features were deleted by another Google Map Maker user, who doesn't appear to be a Google employee.

You wrote "Google blanked out the infamous Silicon Valley homeless camp called The Jungle from Google Maps, after numerous news articles pointed out ..." First, only one of the articles was published before December 4 2014, so that's not "numerous." And second, none of them say that Google did anything because of the article. The way it's written appears to be an improper synthesis.

Also, the maps of the camp appear to still be available on Google Maps, so it also appears to be factually incorrect. Mr.Z-man 18:51, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback. Each reference cite supports a different fact or part of the entry sentence(s). They are all valid references by reputable news journalists. One of the news articles points links to the Google Maps staff Jilliams. http://www.google.com/mapmaker?gw=66&uid=216377578992315515344 and http://www.freebase.com/user/jilliams https://www.google.com/mapmaker?gw=39&fid=9263397752452484641:2131111025152286439 and Official contractor Google Reviewer "Flash" https://www.google.com/mapmaker?iwloc=0_0&fmi=0_0&gw=55&editids=6pAagkkY6a63IA6H1C&ll=37.327328,-121.864882&spn=0.000903,0.001794&z=20&lyrs=1,5&lyt=large_map_v3&hyaw=199.9299829143272 That same article explains that the names of the trails and roads and the landmark point of interest for The Jungle have been blanked out. Baleywik (talk) 18:58, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Hello, Baleywik. 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 2018 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Baleywik. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]