Baldy Bill

Welcome, roadfan!

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

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

If you are interested, there is already a community of users who are roadfans or who edit articles about roads, just like you! Stop by any of these WikiProjects—WP:HWY (worldwide), WP:CRWP (Canada), WP:INR (India), WP:UKRD (United Kingdom), or WP:USRD (United States)—and contribute. If you live in the United States, there is an excellent new user's guide. There is a wealth of information and resources for creating a great article. If you have questions about any of these WikiProjects, you can ask on each project's talk page, or you can ask me!

If you like communicating through IRC, feel free to ask questions at #wikipedia-en-roads ^connect as well. Here, there are several editors who are willing to answer your questions. For more information, see WP:HWY/IRC.

Again, welcome! Rschen7754 19:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 4

fixed Baldy Bill (talk) 19:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

January 2013

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your recent edit to Apostrophe appears to have added a Wikipedia:Userbox relating to the article itself. Our userboxes are for editor use only and have no interest to our readers. Thank you.  –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 09:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, didn't realise that was the policy, thought it would have been useful but I see what you mean. I'll remove it now.

It is rather amusing ... I have been tempted to copy it to my User page. Happy editing! –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 19:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Post script: They say exchange is no robbery, so I wondered if you'd like to accept this {{Template:User apostrophe}} with my compliments.
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones – The WelshBuzzard – 19:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 11

fixed. Baldy Bill (talk) 19:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Unincorporated Communities in Virginia

Hello Baldy Bill! Please see User talk:MountainRail or talk:Mustoe, Highland County, Virginia for my reply to your recent post regarding notability. Thanks! MountainRail (talk) 13:04, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Just notifying you that I have posted a reply on my talk page. MountainRail (talk) 21:43, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Redirect

Sure, no problem. I was hoping to find more on him, and I have added him to Familypedia, since I have links in texts there that mention him. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

RE:

I'm incredibly sorry, I'll fix that if you have not already. Thanks. -- Binko71100 (talk) 22:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

• I did the update just before I posted on your talk page. No worries, keep up the good stuff! Baldy Bill (talk) 22:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

advice?

Hi Baldy Bill - I wonder if I could get a little help with a recent-pages kind of problem. In the course of working down the back of the queue, I (properly) marked three redirect pages as orphans. They're actually soft redirect pages, which makes even less sense. The pages are Alumni Hall (Harvard University), Great Hall (Harvard University), and Annenberg Hall (Harvard University). Redirect pages, whether hard or soft, are candidates for deletion, aren't they? Does it make any sense to establish a redirect page that nothing refers to?

That the factual part. The other unfortunate part is that this attracted the attention of the editor, who has a history of offensive jokes, demeaning language, etc. I've tried to deflect any argument as seen here but he or she keeps needlessly escalating.

What's the best course? I'm also posting this same msg for Binko. Thanks for your help. --Lockley (talk) 23:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• I see no problem with hard redirects, the title of the redirect does not have to be notable, as long as it points to a relevant article. For an example within my own work, see Penn Inn Roundabout, Devon, England, not sufficiently notable for its own article but significant within the context of A380 road as it is a major navigational landmark and the bane of anyone who tries to drive into Torbay. Wikipedia policy is very pro- redirect pages as enhancing the project. If it points to an irrelevant article I would say that's a case for a quick fix+edit to point to a more appropriate one; if the redirect title itself is spam or vandalism that's a different thing. Soft redirects I'm not so sure on, maybe Binko can help better. Your patrolling style is very different to mine in that your average time to patrol is well under a minute which means you weed out far more rubbish far quicker than me, I tend (in RL as well) to get bogged down/distracted by detail and spend up to 15mins on a page (as long as it is not an afd candidate). I have been heavily patrolling the back of the userspace newpage queue recently and finding a lot of spam and WP:SPA there, I deal with most of it by posting the subst:welcome0 together with subst:uw-userpage and a link to WP:PROMO or WP:UP#PROMO, being careful to put the welcome in first before the content advice. If you need to create the usertalk to post a notice, I'd always advise putting a welcome template in first, to keep it more positive than negative. Welcome0 is good because it doesn't thank them for contributions. I'd been editing for 2 years before anyone welcomed me (although I was pleased they DID thank me for contributing in that case...)!

• As far as the discussion with eeng goes, I would say s/he has a point but makes it uncivilly. When I first started doing cleanup I thought redlinks were bad, but then I stumbled on WP:REDLINK which says basically that redlinks can be useful if used in moderation, and provide for preventing future orphanhood of the article if it is likely to be created (ie once created it will already have links to it, and seeing the redlink may inspire someone to create it). I'd advise you to just post a brief, not-too-apologetic apology underneath; maybe something along the lines of "OK, I see what you mean, I didn't mean to offend you. Thanks". Whether s/he's wrong or not doesn't really matter, you just don't want it carrying on, it's just not worth the stress to you for something you do as a volunteer. Let them go. Someone else will deal with them later if that needs to be done. Leave it up for a couple weeks (so s/he isn't pissed off(sic) by you deleting it quickly) then have a general tidy-up of your talk page including their bit, as WP:user pages does say you can delete talk messages once read. Sidetracked by a long answer to a short question again! —Baldy Bill (talk) 00:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

thank you Baldy Bill for the long answer. See, this redirect-with-no-links thing is contrary to my own experience, but then again we're talking about, probably, 2007 or 2008 when I acquired that vague idea. I don't see it as a big problem either way. EEng has displayed lots of his/her personality exactly along the lines of his/her edit history so, yes, I believe someone else will be dealing with them later. And, as to my patrolling speed? The advantage is that the back of the queue has already sat there for 20+ days, been auto-tagged, weeded out, corrected, and there are simply a lot of good apples back there that just need a checkmark. Perhaps we're at DefCon 5? all best! --Lockley (talk) 00:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the point of the orphaned soft redirect is that if someone types it in the wikipedia search box, they get a result which points in the direction of an existing article rather than no result at all, or worse, being tempted to create a pointless page. It also serves well to keep the door open (although not in the case of those uni halls) for a future article if enough material (or interested editors) become available - again for a personal example see the edit history on A381 road - 5+years it sat as a circular redirect to a list article (it is still an unfinished work though so please don't rate it yet!). The defcon thing is very arbitrary, I don't know if there was ever any consensus on the thresholds contained in Scottywong's template or whether he set them himself, but I think they're about right - 40+ days=1, 30+ days =2, 20+ days =3, 10+ days =4, and <10 days = 5. Under 20 days to review is a good standard, under 10 days is ideal I think, to keep the rubbish at bay. Certainly I have no criticism of your patrol speed - I am consciously trying to get a bit faster rather than being bogged down doing many corrections myself, equally I try to avoid tag'n'go if all that's needed is to fix a couple of mistyped templates or links, or add a category, or an obvious de-orphan. Top work!! Baldy Bill (talk) 00:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

change of location map from Italy to Sicily

Hello, I'm User:AlexanderVanLoon. I translated and wrote the article Villa Romana di Patti on 1 January, and intend to improve it further soon. I noticed that you changed the location map in the article's infobox from Italy to Sicily on 18 January. I'm writing you to ask if you would agree to reverse your change. There are two reasons for this. I think it's easier to recognize a location map of Italy than a location map of Sicily (unless you are Sicilian of course). The map of Italy provides more context while still giving a good indication of the site's location. But most importantly, take a look at all the other articles which use the archaeological site infobox template here: Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Infobox_archaeological_site. Observe that practically all other articles on archaeological sites in Italy, Greece and Turkey use the "national" maps. So to remain consistent with the other articles I think the map of Italy as a whole is the most appropriate. If you disagree, could you please explain your reasons? --AlexanderVanLoon (talk) 11:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• OK, I wasn't aware of the precedent of other Italian historical sites, I have reverted to the original map for you (but left the caption under). On most other types of page it is usual to use the largest scale map available. I look at pages through the eyes of a new pages patroller, rather than a historian! Many contributors don't even add coordinates, so I always add them and a map if they can be easily found. Thanks for creating a well written article. Baldy Bill (sharpen the razor|see my reflection) 21:11, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ihabbaghdadi2002

You might want to point this out to an Oversighter also, at > oversight-en-wpwikipedia.org < Mlpearc (powwow) 19:18, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 18

fixed Baldy Bill (sharpen the razor|see my reflection) 23:00, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

New message

---

Hello. You have a new message at Gareth Griffith-Jones's talk page. - 07:27, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

---

Disambiguation link notification for February 25

fixed 27 feb Baldy Bill (sharpen the razor|see my reflection) 23:46, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Hawaii Five-0

Thank you for your message about the episode, Death Sentence. I see it in two ways.

One is to violently disagree, to the point of breaking furniture, smashing dishes, etc. Ok, just joking. However, there are so many other TV shows that have articles on them. Look at Star Trek shows, which are only one example. Even high schools are generally notable.

The opposite view is that Wikipedia is full of junk and inconsistencies. How about an unsuccessful political candidate for a U.S. House seat, running in the primary of a major party and finishing second? To me, far more notable than a TV episode.

Let us discuss this issue among ourselves in the hope of understanding it better and forming a larger consensus. If sensible Wikipedia editors ban together, we can bring order to Wikipedia and win over the troublemaker factions, some of whom are very tricky. Auchansa (talk) 04:47, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Fingle Bridge

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:02, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Olympic Pipeline Did you know

		The Original Barnstar
		Thanks for taking Olympic Pipeline explosion to the next level and getting it listed on Didyouknow. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:07, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Road junction lists".

Guide for participants If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form. What this noticeboard is: It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction. What this noticeboard is not: It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct. It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums. It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN. It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy. Things to remember: Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion. Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page. Sign and date your posts with four tildes "~~~~". If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage. Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 08:02, 29 March 2013 (UTC) Raam Gokhale Hi, just to let you know that I reverted a vandal edit to your revision of the article "Raam Gokhale". — 49.249.139.68 (talk) 00:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC) Thanks! Baldy Bill (sharpen the razor|see my reflection) 06:16, 8 April 2013 (UTC) For your road works The Automotive Barnstar To Baldy Bill, for your good work in improving our coverage of the British road network. This is the most appropriate specialist Barnstar I could find – please consider the central design as a representation of a five-way roundabout!  —SMALLJIM  22:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC) Many thanks Smalljim! Baldy Bill (sharpen the razor|see my reflection) 20:08, 16 May 2013 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for September 23 fixed September 2013 Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to New Road, Oxford may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. fixed Disambiguation link notification for October 10 fixed DYK Hi, I fixed my nomination, and would be grateful if you could have another look at it. Thanks, Matty.007 14:05, 19 October 2013 (UTC) And as a quick heads up, your nomination at this page needs a (pictured) somewhere. Matty.007 14:16, 19 October 2013 (UTC) Thanks for that Matty! Easier to see it on someone else's than my own... GTG'd yours. Baldy Bill (sharpen the razor|see my reflection) 15:14, 19 October 2013 (UTC) DYK review of Systems of Consanguinity and Affinity of the Human Family Yes the daughters were dead, they died from scarlet fever while he was away on research as is mentioned in the section on research. In the quote you stumbled on he is saying that the dedication to the dead daughters was appropriate because he felt that it was bhis being away on research that led to their deaths. You seem to have read the article piecemeal which led you to misunderstand the quote.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:34, 22 October 2013 (UTC) Guilty as charged, my apologies. I was looking for the hook within the article, I normally investigate any claim I make of a content problem more thoroughly before committing to print! Baldy Bill (sharpen the razor|see my reflection) 21:05, 22 October 2013 (UTC) No worries, it was a easy to overlook since the hook fact is kind of divided into to distinct places.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:13, 23 October 2013 (UTC) Thanks! Wii Sports Club DYK Thank-you for your kind support of my DYK nomination. I can be kind of critical of myself so thanks for being one of the people who helped get it ready for the Main Page! Happy editing! DarkToonLink 06:22, 24 October 2013 (UTC) DYK for Ffordd Pen Llech The DYK project (nominate) 08:02, 2 November 2013 (UTC) A barnstar for you! The Surreal Barnstar Congratulations on bringing Ffordd Pen Llech to DYK, and adding spice and colour to the front page! Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:46, 2 November 2013 (UTC) WikiCup 2014 Hi, if you haven't already, you should consider signing up for WikiCup 2014. Cheers, --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 01:04, 4 November 2013 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for November 4 fixed Template:Did you know nominations/Ashchorjyo Prodeep I am relatively new so I don't know that DYK noms are not deleted but that was not the reason I was awaiting a review but because of the fact that I will have to go on a Wiki-break while on one I cannot reply to the questions of the reviewer, that was my main concern and thanks for promoting without the image. Best, Sohambanerjee1998 07:00, 6 November 2013 (UTC) DYK for River Nevis Gatoclass (talk) 13:38, 7 November 2013 (UTC) Category:British sheriffs Thank you for making this edit however as James Calthorpe (Roundhead) was a sheriff before 1707 he was not a British sheriff but an English sheriff. There will be a further complication with this category because after 1801 Irish sheriffs will become UK Sheriffs for 121 years. To side step this issue it seems to me better to link in the list of High Sheriffs to the category rather than the individual articles. -- PBS (talk) 12:49, 12 November 2013 (UTC) Thanks for the clarification, I'm no expert on High Sheriffs so picked the nearest match I could during a New Pages Patrol per the requirement that all articles are categorised. I was going to say I have no problem with you changing to a better category, but I see Plucas58 has beaten us to the correction! Baldy Bill (sharpen the razor|see my reflection) 19:54, 12 November 2013 (UTC) to categorise or not to categorise, that is the question As I said, roads are not categorized by what they serve. To address your concern, we don't categorize roads by incidents based on aircraft incidents based on the origination or destination of an aircraft. Now if there are a number articles about the Kegworth air disaster that merited a category, it might be OK to categorize the road there. But the airport is not defining for the road! Vegaswikian (talk) 00:25, 13 November 2013 (UTC) New article vs redirect I'm having trouble creating a new road article (A283 road) - can you help? I'm confused about the redirect from the A road zone 2 page. Do I change the redirect first, or create the article first? The redirect seems to be preventing me from creating the article. Baffled of Blaenffos - Cheers, Tony Holkham (talk) 12:09, 17 May 2014 (UTC) (stalking) I don't wish to pour cold water on your efforts, but the first thing you need to to is work out whether there is sufficient coverage in reliable sources such as national newspapers or books. That'll give you an idea of what a typical layman reader might expect, be it a standalone article or a footnote. Remember that those who supported the M11 link road protest or Twyford Down read Wikipedia too. You might find more joy in writing about the old Adur Toll Bridge, especially if there's a social and political angle that's not obvious - for instance, you can't determine what makes Jade's Crossing significant by looking at a SatNav, but it becomes obvious once you look at the article. Some food for thought, anyhow. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:10, 18 May 2014 (UTC) Kind of you, Ritchie - something to think about, cheers...Tony Holkham (talk) 21:31, 18 May 2014 (UTC) Hi Tony, (in my opinion) the best thing to do with any new article or major content added to an existing article is to work on it in your sand box. You can read it and tweak it to death there, then paste it in a single edit (which is fine for attribution as you have generated all the code) onto the main article page. My opinion differs slightly from Ritchie333's on how much road coverage there should be on WP but I do agree we shouldn't have endless articles (defined elsewhere, I forget where now as) "if there isn't anything to say about a road other than a narrative of its waypoints". I'm slowly picking off articles to improve where I can find WP:RS coverage of interesting events concerning a road, but since I edit WP to relax rather than get stressed there are a lot more articles needing improvement than time I am willing to allot to them! As far as overwriting a redirect goes, you need to click on the title you want, then underneath the target article title there is a small-text note saying "Redirected from (original title)". Clicking on that will take you to a page like this on which you then click "edit" and overwrite the redirect text with your new article. There is one important caveat with this - don't add your sandbox work to any categories until you've made it live - no categories should link to userspace drafts. Then immediately after publication add your article to some relevant categories (it's one of the things new page patrollers check for, as spammers don't bother to do this). Hope this answers your question! Baldy Bill (sharpen the razor|see my reflection) 22:02, 18 May 2014 (UTC) That's much clearer now - thank you for your help. I find some of the WP guideline pages a little difficult to follow, but I guess I'll get there eventually. Tony Holkham (talk) 22:13, 18 May 2014 (UTC) One final note from me - the Teahouse is the place for new WP editors to ask questions. It's friendly and welcoming and you'll hopefully get great advice from it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:01, 19 May 2014 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for May 31 fixed A477 BB - I responded to your note on my talk page, but then wondered whether you would be watching it, so this is just to let you know... Tony Holkham (talk) 11:34, 26 July 2014 (UTC) World film magic The subject article was PRODed by yourself - it has been restored as a contested PROD. You may wish to consider WP:AfD in the light of this result. Ronhjones  (Talk) 17:31, 25 August 2014 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for January 3 Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Drammen Spiral, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page NOK. 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) 11:24, 3 January 2015 (UTC) 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) 14:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC) Removal of Championship_Rally_(Atari_Lynx) page Hi, I never got notified of impending removal of this article so I was never able to respond: Championship_Rally_(Atari_Lynx) Maybe related but somehow someone else claimed my username (lucienk) so I cannot login anymore. I created a new username. I did get notified the cover art image is about to be deleted but not article deletion. The deletion reason you gave was: "Homebrew video game with no claim to notability. Only two sources cited, one of which is the publisher's website". Actually it's a commercial video game that was reviewed by ign.com and several other web sites. I could add these additional sources but unfortunately I missed notification about problems with this article. Let me know if you would reconsider reinstating the article so I can add those sources. Also any other issues that would need to be corrected. Thanks! Lucienen (talk) 03:10, 21 September 2016 (UTC) both issues have been resolved by Nyttend. Not sure if or how I can remove this section but you can close this. LucienK (talk) 15:17, 21 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LucienK (talk • contribs) 15:17, 21 September 2016 (UTC) New deal for page patrollers Hi Baldy Bill, In order to better control the quality of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created. Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work. Find out more about this exiting new user right now at New Page Reviewers and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:28, 13 November 2016 (UTC) ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open! Hello, Baldy Bill. 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) ArbCom 2017 election voter message Hello, Baldy Bill. 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) ArbCom 2018 election voter message Hello, Baldy Bill. 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) ArbCom 2019 election voter message Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC) Stane Street (Chichester) Hi Baldy Bill! About seven years ago you assessed Stane Street (Chichester) for WikiProject UK Roads. I've recently been doing some work to expand the article, which you originally rated as C class. Would you be willing to reassess it please? (I have recently received feedback from a member of WikiProject:Archaeology and WikiProject:Classical Greece and Rome, who has assessed it as B class for those two projects.) Thanks and best wishes, Mertbiol (talk) 01:24, 10 November 2020 (UTC) Done, and also for WP:UKGEO of which I am also a participant, it meets the criteria for the projects and WP:CLASSES. Thanks for an interesting read! Baldy Bill (sharpen the razor|see my reflection) 21:28, 22 November 2020 (UTC) Thanks very much Baldy Bill! Mertbiol (talk) 12:39, 23 November 2020 (UTC) ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC) ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:27, 23 November 2021 (UTC) Rock art articles Hello. I've noticed that you are a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Norway. I'm writing this to draw your attention to my message here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Norway#Rock_art_articles,_anyone?. If this might be of interest to you, please let me know. If not, please excuse me for distubing you. Bw --Orland (talk) 13:04, 30 November 2021 (UTC) Hei Orland – takk for melding... I am somewhat short of editing time this year due to personal circumstances, but I will bear it in mind as it looks interesting, and will dip in if I can and if no-one else gets there first! Baldy Bill (sharpen the razor|see my reflection) 23:32, 4 December 2021 (UTC) PRODs Hello, Baldy Bill, I noticed you tagged a couple of pages for Proposed deletion and they were deleted. But you neglected to post notifications on the talk page of the page creators which is an important step of every deletion process. I see you use Twinkle, which is a great tool, so please be sure your Twinkle Preferences are set to "Notify page creator" and that this box is checked when you tag an article. It would be greatly appreciated. Many thanks for your contributions on Wikipedia. Liz Read! Talk! 20:03, 2 May 2022 (UTC) Thanks Liz, the guidance (and your time) is appreciated. Baldy Bill (sharpen the razor|see my reflection) 20:45, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about List of Finnish ice hockey players

Hello, Baldy Bill, and welcome to Wikipedia. I edit here too, under the username Meena, and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, List of Finnish ice hockey players, should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Finnish ice hockey players.

You might like to note that such discussions usually run for seven days and are not ballot-polls. And, our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Meena}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

– Meena • 18:20, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed 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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:12, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

To-dos

Also, this is a completely different subject, but could I he.p you fet through your to-do page? When I was reducing major junction over the past three or so weeks, I have noticed that 99% of UK road articles are not up to good standard. An example, would be the A37 road, which doesn't have a route section. Instead, it has a three-line, extremely brief route section with the rest of it being a history section, when really half of it should be categorised into "incidents" and "future". If not then that is fine; just a suggestion. Roads4117 (talk) 12:27, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

I wrote the to-dos as a note to me about 10 years ago as articles I noted to be particuarly wanting at that time... I don't own the articles so I'm not offended by anyone else getting there first. I probably ought to revisit the list and re-assess what the state of those articles is now. At that time, I added junction info to a lot of roads that had none, and added every junction. It seems that since then a new consensus has arisen that junction info should be limited to the most important connections, so let's go with that, proportionally to the class of road that the article is about (for example, the A379 road is a local road which intersects only the A38 as a primary route, so it's proportional to list the 6 other local roads it intersects - but the A38 road should not list its connection with the A379). Incidentally, the A379 is a good example of where there are a large number of references to SABRE which shouldn't be removed until replaced by better ones, as for now they inform us where the material came from. So the approach with that article would be to try to find better documentation on the claims made rather than deleting the whole lot, and thinning out some detail to an appropriate level (who really needs to know about an out of date signpost in Dawlish? and is it even still there?)

I think we shouldn't be adding much in the way of future improvements sections as they have a habit of taking decades to happen, although it is valid once construction has started provided it can be reliably sourced. "Incidents" is a tricky one too, how do we define what is a significant incident? It's very subjective. Also, dividing up History/Incidents/Popular culture etc depends on how much material there is; if the history is only 2 or 3 items they don't need to be subdivided, just a new paragraph will do. There is no hard-and-fast rule on this, but common sense needs to be applied, the aim is to improve readability not divide into arbitrary sections for the sake of it. Baldy Bill (sharpen the razor|see my reflection) 14:10, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi Baldy Bill, I agree with you on the above. Roads4117 (talk) 09:20, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Baldy Bill!

Happy New Year!

Baldy Bill,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. See this for background context.
Roads4117 (talk) 16:39, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, and back at you!

The Christmas break has finished and back to work, so I won't be around as much for a while. Baldy Bill (sharpen the razor|see my reflection) 18:54, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed 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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:39, 28 November 2023 (UTC)