User talk:BillMasen/old

Welcome!

Andorra in World War II
Thanks for your comment about my addition to Participants in World War II. I admit, I was motivated mainly by curiosity in filling it in, too &mdash; when you added the section heading, I wanted to know what Andorra had been up to as well. -- Vardion 07:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Spanish Civil War
Too short comments, regarding your last edits in the article. One is just formal. Your reference to Moreno should be to Montero. You might have overseen that spanish authors often sign with both family names (Montero Moreno), but references usually are only made to the first (if there are no duplicates).

The second is related to the source of numbers of violent acts just before the war. I have no time now to dig for them, but IIRC they come from one of the last speeches in the "Cortes" by either Gil-Robles or Calvo Sotelo. I'll check it out for you, when i have time.

If you are american and interested, just a couple of weeks ago Stanley G. Payne has published "The Collapse of the Spanish Republic", edited by Yale UP. dealing with the event which lead to the war. Payne is one of the foremost scholars in the field -and one of the least biased. --Wllacer 17:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Dzp.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Dzp.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 15:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

your assessment request
Your assessment request for Mandela: the Authorised Biography has been turned down, as it is not in scope of the Biography WikiProject. You might try WP:BOOKS instead. Er rab ee 02:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Popular vote graph

 * Copied from User talk:Lofty.

I like your graph on the Popular vote for UK parties. Do you have the data which it was made with, and can you please send it to me? I ask because the popular vote totals for early elections (1830 onwards) are not in the wikipedia articles. Thanks very much, BillMasen 20:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I took the information mentioned from the percentage vote column of the tabulated voting and parliamentary seats information on the wikipedia article about each election. Lofty 15:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * but do you still have the data? would it be possible to nab it off you :p Cheers BillMasen 01:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed yes, I have an Excel file with the data on...perhaps provide an e-mail address and I can e-mail it to you? Lofty 10:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * many thanks. Please email it to grey_harry@hotmail.com :). Cheers, BillMasen 17:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Further request for source data
With regards to the above discussion, could I also have a look at the above data, if you still have it? I was thinking about redoing the graph in a prettier, more modern layout in a png file for the upcoming election. Many thanks, Anxietycello (talk) 02:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The Troubles
I've reverted your edit to this article. I've started a discussion on the talk page with my reasoning, if you have anything to add please do so. Thanks. One Night In Hackney 303  20:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Or rather, I meant to revert it but for some reason it didn't work. Done now, and the Scotland/Wales source is on the talk page. Thanks. One Night In Hackney  303  20:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit summary
Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. --Slashme 17:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment
Then I recommend that you change your comment so it is more constructive; rather than seeming just like an observation. It reads like you are just talking about the game. Hope that helps for the future, buddy! Scar ian Talk  22:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Additional note - I look forward to your amendment! Scar ian  Talk  22:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

South Africa under apartheid
As a previous contributor the discussion, please have a look at Talk:South Africa under apartheid. We need to build consensus on how to split it up, or otherwise shorten it, and your input would be appreciated. 9Nak (talk) 10:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

July 2008
Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without explaining the valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC) "perhaps this could be brought back. in massively truncated form" is not a valid reason to delete a 50K section of text from an article.


 * What I think of the length is immaterial. A large numbmer of editors created that summary and shortened it as a result of the WikiProject Novels COTM. Deleting the entire section from a page because you think it too long is never a valid reason for deletion. You are also incorrect that a plot summary "serves no useful purpose" when the article is about the book being summarized. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You are mistaken about article length. There is no cutoff, and there are Featured Articles that are more than 80K.  The 40K "limit" applies to the length of individual editable sections, not the entire article, and is a courtesy to those wishing to edit sections.  Sections longer than 40K cause diting problems for users with slower connections. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Your mail to Rick Norwood
I went to the talk page for the article in question, and did not find your comments. Can you provide a link to them? Rick Norwood (talk) 13:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation page for Rearmament
I have changed all the links to Happy Rhodes' album Rearmament to Rearmament_(album). We no longer need a disambiguation page, and can be devoted entirely to Chamberlin's term. K8 fan (talk) 16:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Captain Spleen
I opted against using stronger language when dealing with for two reasons... All of that being said, if he continues to make counter-productive edits like those on Talk:Anglophobia after being gently warned, he may wind up getting himself blocked.
 * 1) "Do not feed the trolls." Generally, making a big deal out of what trolls say does nothing but encourage them. Besides, his user page states that he likes to "bug other users", so we'd only be falling into his trap.
 * 2) He does have a history of being productive. Arbitrarily blocking them without explaining why their comments are not welcome may turn potential good contributors either away from or against the project.

Thanks for your concern,  caknuck °  is geared up for football season  19:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Election box
Hi - the election box template strongly suggests arranging three parties on one line; only elections with two or four parties should have two on each line. This all looks fine at my screen resolution; if it's causing problems on yours, it'd be worth reporting on the template talk page. Warofdreams talk 13:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If the problem is an overlap, you may be able to solve this with . Warofdreams talk 13:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Emperor Jimmu
Will you give some thought to re-visiting your edit to the introduction of this article about Emperor Jimmu? As a general rule, your version would be considered above reproach because it is crisp, direct, less ambiguous; however, in this instance -- and in the case of the legendary figures who are traditionally considered to have followed him -- the subject matter calls for a kind of fuzzy logic which would be plainly inappropriate for an article about a modern Hanover, Hapsburg or Hohenzolern monarch.

Although you turned your attention to one sovereign only, the sense of the paragraph you considered is replicated in the articles about all Japanese emperors up to the 29th one, Emperor Kimmei, who is the first for whom records are verifiable,

I struggled a little bit with the text you've tightened up; but unlike you, I was trying to contrive a sentence which would be both accurate and ambiguous -- leaving open a range of possibilities which modern scholars believe are ultimately unprovable. --Tenmei (talk)

Your ArbCom candidacy
I recommend for you to read the instructions first if you want to run and then create Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Candidate statements/BillMasen with your statement on why you want to run. Thanks Secret account 16:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok it's properly fixed, sorry for reverting Secret account 16:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom questions
Hi. I'm Ral315, editor of the Wikipedia Signpost. We're interviewing all ArbCom candidates for an article this week, and your response is requested.


 * 1) What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.), on this or other wikis?
 * 2) Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?
 * 3) Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
 * 4) How do you feel the Arbitration Committee has handled cases and other situations over the last year?  Can you provide an examples of situations where you feel the Committee handled a situation exceptionally well, and why?  Any you feel they handled poorly, and why?
 * 5) What is your opinion on confidentiality?  If evidence is submitted privately to the Committee, would you share it with other parties in the case?  Would you make a decision based on confidential information without making it public?
 * 6) Why do you think users should vote for you?
 * 1) How do you feel the Arbitration Committee has handled cases and other situations over the last year?  Can you provide an examples of situations where you feel the Committee handled a situation exceptionally well, and why?  Any you feel they handled poorly, and why?
 * 2) What is your opinion on confidentiality?  If evidence is submitted privately to the Committee, would you share it with other parties in the case?  Would you make a decision based on confidential information without making it public?
 * 3) Why do you think users should vote for you?
 * 1) Why do you think users should vote for you?
 * 1) Why do you think users should vote for you?

Please respond on my talk page. We'll probably go to press on Tuesday, but late responses will be added as they're submitted. Thanks, Ral315 (talk) 22:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikivoices
Hey AnthonyQBachler, i was wondering whether at somepoint over the next week youd be interested in doing a recording on skype with Wikivoices (formally NTWW), we are interviewing all the arbcom candidates with one on one interviews.h They were supposed to be started last week, owever they are now being done. We have a team of 3 interviewers and we are all taking various editors. I was wondering when you would be free to do an interview? Sedd&sigma;n talk 04:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Many Thanks Seddon

Muggletonians
Thanks for your kind thoughts. I don't feel I have any aptitude for the task but, the best way to encourage others who do, is to start the topic off.

I do regard myself as a Muggletonian and keep in touch with a few other like souls. (What our average age is, I dread to think!) One has done a lot of private research on William Blake being a Muggletonian at least in terms of going to meetings. E. P. Thompson missed a trick by thinking that because Blake's name never crops up in the archive, he had nothing to do with them. But the archive is the work of the Aldersgate congregation and my correspondent has unearthed enough evidence that there was a Lambeth congregation at the relevant time and that Blake went along sometimes for a pint and a song! I rather like that idea.Coxparra (talk) 14:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I take your point about sectarian versus prophet. Since sectarian has been on the page a long time without objection from anyone, I would be more than happy to go back to that. My vote goes for prophet, though, because that's what he saw himself as. I don't think prophet implies successful prophet. My original reason for quoting Prof Lamont was because, having introduced Lodowicke Muggleton as a religious person, I wanted to stress that he was not exclusively that. It is possible to see him as part of the history of ideas. Personally, I suspect that Muggleton would have been horrified to be compared to Thomas Hobbes or someone like Immanuel Kant but it can be done, and Professor Lamont said so. But it's not really necessary to include all that in an introduction so the best course of action maybe to think of something else instead. It's on page 69 of William Lamont's book. Thanks for all your ideas. It makes for a much better article.Coxparra (talk) 21:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia search and Google
I have left a message for you over at Wikipedia talk:Searching.

--David Göthberg (talk) 23:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

saving this here... In a republic, the office of head of state is not officially considered the property of anyone purely on the basis of their ancestry. Republics may be authoritarian, democratic or aristocratic.

Republic
Please use Talk:Republic for discussion of the content of the Republic article, not my talk page. I'm not going to use yours, as long as a calm and open discussion is possible at Talk:Republic. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Anglophobia
In answer to the message you sent me earlier today, I've left my opinion on Talk:Anglophobia for you and Snowded to look at in your own time. Thanks again. Crablogger (talk) 11:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

German colonial empire
The German colonial empire article is very biased and POV. It includes nothing almost on the atrocities, brutal exploitation and colonial policies that later were transfered to Europe during WW1 and WW2--Molobo (talk) 14:10, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, as I said on the article's talk page. Unfortunately, this is a topic about which I know little (although I know biased tone when I see it). If you know anything about it, and you can expand on the negative aspects of the GCE, you'll have my full support. BillMasen (talk) 17:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

High Court of Justice for the trial of Charles I
I undid your edit to the article on High Court of Justice for the trial of Charles I. I think you made a mistake. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 14:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have checked more closely. I have now restored your version. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 21:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Anglophobia and Anti-British sentiment
I don't think the note you've added is necessary or helpful. Of course, in terms of strict etymology you are correct. However, the fact is that the most usual one-word term for "anti-British sentiment" is Anglophobia. When Ahmadinejad is described as "Anglophobic", for instance, I doubt that either he or the authors of the articles about him make a strict differentiation between English people and British people (or government). Although I accept that refs to anti-British sentiment which do not use the specific word Anglophobia should go in the ABS article, when the sources do use the specific term Anglophobia, whether or not we think it is strictly correct to do so, it is legitimate for them to be referenced in the Anglophobia article. It's not up to us as editors to impose our view of "correctness" on reliable sources. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the point you make is slightly different. Followed through to its logical conclusion it would mean that the Anglophobia article would be split between two articles on Anglophobia (anti-English sentiment) and Anglophobia (anti-British sentiment), which in my view is unnecessary and unworkable.  As I said, I'm happy for ABS in general to be in the ABS article, but if the refs use the term Anglophobia, even if we think it refers to anti-British sentiment, it's legitimate to cover it in the Anglophobia article.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The point is, I think, that we are talking about words of overlapping and uncertain definition. There is the question of whether - or to what extent - we are talking about generally anti-British feelings (by other areas of the world), or specifically anti-English feelings (mostly within Britain and Ireland, and to a lesser extent in other parts of the world).  There is also a second question, of to what extent whatever term we use relates to fear or hatred, or alternatively to a less extreme dislike.  The problem is that, although some terms, like "Anti-English sentiment", are quite specific in what they cover, the term "Anglophobia" is not.  It is sometimes used for "hatred of the English", but it is also sometimes used for "dislike of the British" - or for points in between.  As editors we cannot redefine terms, or say that one use is "right" and another is "wrong".  Although we might judge that Australians are more likely to differentiate between English and Scots than, say, Iranians are, we don't know that to be the case.  So, one alternative would be to merge the two articles, but in my view if that is done it should use the term Anglophobia as the most commonly used term in practice even though it is sometimes applied to the British as a whole, and even though it is sometimes used to describe dislike rather than fear or hatred.  One alternative - of trying to split it into, say, three articles (anti-British sentiment, anti-English sentiment, Anglophobia - I don't think "Britophobia" exists) - would require judgements to be made by editors as to precisely what is the underlying meaning of each example.  The other alternative is what we have now, which is to have overlapping but linked articles, one specifically on the use of the term Anglophobia - however it is meant - and the other on anti-British sentiment.  In a messy and illogical world, I think the current solution is the best one.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The word "Anglophobia" is used by some (mainly but not exclusively within the UK) to mean anti-English sentiment/hatred/fear, and by others (outside the UK) to mean anti-British sentiment/etc. Neither of those uses is "wrong".  In some cases it is not clear which meaning is meant. (I think the issue of "Anti-British sentiment" in the sense of opposition to the concept of "Britishness" within the UK is a different concept, although it may need to be mentioned in any article, linked, say, to Celtic nationalism.)  In my view, the two existing articles could usefully be merged - I think the reason they are not is mainly due to the argument over "phobia" not being the same as "sentiment", rather than the difference between "English" and "British".  Are you now suggesting three articles - that is, Anti-British sentiment, Anglophobia (anti-English sentiment) and Anglophobia (anti-British sentiment)?  (Presumably, the first of those could be a redirect to the third.)  I may be getting myself confused as to what you are suggesting.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * One example of uncertainty is the use of the word "pom" in Australia. There are refs which define it as referring to British people generally, and others which state it refers specifically to the English and not the Scots etc. In general, internationally, there is widespread confusion - the word "English" is often used unthinkingly (or unknowingly) to refer to the British more generally. I understand what you are saying, but such a clear split between "anti-English" and "anti-British" would not cover examples where the meaning is not clear, and in my view would be difficult (and potentially contentious) to "police" effectively.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Carroll John Daly
I'm not sure if I'm following the right protocol here -- User BillMasen had asked about the first hard-boiled detective story, purportedly by Carroll John Daly; I found this reference in the book The Black Mask Boys by William F. Nolan, where he says it's "Knights of the Open Palm," Black Mask magazine June 1, 1923, the first story featuring Daly's Race Williams character. However, the anthology The Black Mask Boys does not include this story; that honor goes to "Three Gun Terry," featuring Daly's earlier character Terry Mack, whom Nolan credits as being the immediate precursor to Williams, and says that with Mack "the mold was fully cast" for the hard-boiled detective character. This story appeared two weeks before "Knights," in Black Mask, 15 May 1923. Hope that's helpful. thomasroche (talk) 23:48, 14 May 2010 (PDT)

Stereotypes of white people
I added the "See also" links to Stereotype and Ethnic stereotype to the Stereotypes of white people article. Is it OK if I put them back? Bus stop (talk) 15:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * OK. Thank you. Bus stop (talk) 18:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

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.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. —DoRD (talk) 11:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

1970 General Election
Hi, BillMasen. The pro-Powellites have reverted my amendment to the 1970 General Election article. Consequently, it now contains a long paragraph citing selective and biased "research" which erroneously claims that Enoch Powell added up to five million votes to the Tory total in that election. This is, of course, a total nonsense. There is a long discussion about this on the article's talk page. As you have previously contributed to this discussion, I would be grateful for your input. You may also like to know that there has been renewed discussion on the Enoch Powell talk page about both that article and the Rivers of blood article. These both currently have an editing block on them. Multiculturalist (talk) 08:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Peine forte et dure
The business about the court lacking jurisdiction in the absence of a plea was standard fare in law school classes about criminal procedure. When I get a chance, I'll find something; I seem to remember this being recounted in Blackstone. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I added references to Blackstone, and to Pollock and Maitland. Thanks! - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Anglophobia
If someone restores deleted text per WP:BRD you discuss the change you don;t simply restore your deletion. -- Snowded TALK  01:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

LR
Thanks for the update. I'll take a look. Delia Peabody (talk) 10:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * No big deal. You're doing fine.   Will Beback    talk    12:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * See     Will Beback    talk    12:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Page move
Could you discuss your rationale for moving the Bounty Killer page at the article's talk page? Thanks. Guettarda (talk) 15:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Guettarda (talk) 19:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

BOUNTY KILLER
Bounty Killer is an EXTREMELY well known and popular musician throughout the world. DO NOT make such outrageous page moves based on one questionable source you found on the internet. smooth0707 (talk) 01:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Chill out. Lose the capitals.

Why is the move "outrageous"? And what is this "single source"? BillMasen (talk) 01:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't bother to reply here. See the article's talk page. BillMasen (talk) 02:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * With respect to the advice you received at ANI I don't think that was quite a correct interpretation of that guideline - it certainly isn't in line with what was discussed on a RfC on the subject although the end outcome is probably the correct one. See my explanation at ANI for more detail. Dpmuk (talk) 22:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry to confuse. What I meant was that I think the advice that Uncle G gave that disambiguating by capitalisation was the done thing was too strongly worded as he implies it should always be done.  Having been involved in an RfC on this topic what the wording is meant to convey is that disambiguating by capitalisation is allowed but some thought is necessary about when this is appropriate - see my example at ANI.  How things have turned out is perfectly reasonable I just wanted to let you know that disambiguating by capitalisation isn't always sensible - although in this case it would appear to make sense. Dpmuk (talk) 23:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)