User talk:Balawd

Welcome!

Hello, Balawd, 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 20:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Scrb01.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Scrb01.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 03:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:Road and Bridge Staff 10 2007.JPG

Thanks for uploading File:Road and Bridge Staff 10 2007.JPG. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 21:06, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article AS/NZS 1170.2:2011 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern: Australian Building Code?

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. The-Pope (talk) 11:53, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I note your comment at Talk:AS/NZS 1170.2:2011. I don't recall exactly what the contents of the article, other than thinking that it wasn't encyclopedic. It has nothing to do with "industry supression", it is solely to do with our notability guidelines, which state that topics must have significant coverage in independent reliable sources. I don't think that many AS/NZ standards will comply with this requirement, and even if they do, then the article must be about the standard, not how to use or interpret the standard. Regards, The-Pope (talk) 13:51, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually commentary IS part of the code and should be allowed.Balawd (talk) 04:58, 21 November 2021 (UTC)Balawd[reply]

March 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Camp Ford may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

{{museum
* [http://www.b17.com/campford2/index.htm '''CAMP FORD HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION''']]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:52, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Smith County Road & Bridge

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JohnInDC (talk) 03:41, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Balawd (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Other editors to "Camp Ford" have sought to suppress the written record of members of Ohio, NY, and Iowa regiments imprisoned there or the activities of "regulators" who associated themselves with Confederate forces present. The article in it's current form is misleading in this regard.' It seeks to memorialize the Confederate cause and obliterate any mention of the activities that took place there. Such activities included the murder of a County Sheriff from a neighboring county who had traveled to Camp Ford to claim the body of his son, and the lynching of many freedmen by regulators as recounted after the war by Federal forces held as prisoners. This kind of suppression portrays a false narrative that all of the activity that took place at Camp Ford was noble and legal in every instance when clearly it was not. In particular the conditions within the camp, subsequent death toll, and recounting of events by the Federals has been repeatedly removed as though it had no relevance or bearing on the historical record when the opposite is true. Camp Ford was dismantled and removed at the close of the civil war and largely forgotten until the inevitability of Integration became apparent in the early 50s. It was then that an inaccurate and uninclusive narrative was brought forward and now remains posted in Wikipedia. It was then that a small tract that may have been part of the original camp was acquired by the county and eventually run as a tax payer subsidized concession by a private group. Enough is enough, some regard for an accurate historical record and the people that defended the Constitution of the United States when it was most in peril is long overdue. The exclusivity of the false narrative needs to be questioned, if not here, where? The edits removed were directly from a recounting by the prisoners held at Camp Ford. They do not endorse the idealized image presented in the current article. It is the accuracy of their testimony and clear recall of events otherwise suppressed that irritates the other editors, they do not dispute the accuracy of the works quoted. "TWENTY MONTHS IN THE DEPARTMENT OF THE GULF". A. J. H. DUGANNE, THIRD EDITION. NEW YORK: J. P. ROBINS, PUBLISHER, 37 PARK ROW. 1865.; "CAMP-FIRE SKETCHES AND BATTLE-FIELD ECHOS OF THE REBELLION" Compiled by W. C. KING AND W. P. DERBY OF 27th MASS. REG. AUTHOR OF 27TH HISTORY W. C. KING & CO., Publishers, Springfield, Mass. 1887.; "List of the Dead at Camp Ford" Transcription courtesy of Vicki Betts, University of Texas at Tyler,; Balawd

Decline reason:

I see no block on this account directly. If you are unable to edit, please tell the exact message that appears when you attempt to make an edit. 331dot (talk) 08:05, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Balawd (talk) 04:58, 21 November 2021 (UTC)Balawd [reply]

{{Exact message:You are currently unable to edit Wikipedia due to a block of your username, IP address, or both. This does not affect your ability to read Wikipedia pages.

Most people who see this message have done nothing wrong. Some kinds of blocks restrict editing from specific service providers or telecom companies in response to recent abuse or vandalism, and affect other users who are unrelated to that abuse. See below if you do not believe you have done anything wrong. Editing from 173.222.0.142 has been blocked (disabled) for the following reason(s):

There are multiple blocks against your account and/or IP address

The longest block has been set to expire: 06:51, 27 April 2024. Your current IP address is 173.222.0.142. Relevant block IDs: #10401033, #10641828 (your IP address may also appear in a blocklist)

Even when blocked, you will usually still be able to edit your user talk page and email other editors and administrators.

For information on how to proceed, first see the FAQ for blocked users and the guideline on block appeals. The guide to appealing blocks may also be helpful.

Other useful links: Blocking policy · Help:I have been blocked}}Balawd (talk) 04:58, 21 November 2021 (UTC)Balawd [reply]

The article Smith County Road & Bridge has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

"This is a run-of-the-mill departmental subdivision of a county government with no indication of its notability" That is an unsubstantiated opinion, the notability was plainly stated in the article and was removed when former employee ran for office . Smith County Road and Bridge is responsible for the maintenance and safe operation of 1100 miles of County Roads and Bridges, and the administration of the flood plain. There is nothing run of the mill about it, Balawd (talk) 04:58, 21 November 2021 (UTC)Balawd [reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Balawd (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please explain why this IP address or user has been blocked

Decline reason:

OK, the IP address is part of a globally blocked range ... i.e., across all Wikimedia projects. That is well outside any authority I have. However, since you are a registered user who has been editing for some time without being blocked, you might well be able to get an IP block exemption. Go here and follow the instructions. — Daniel Case (talk) 07:00, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.