User talk:BillMasen/old2

I'm not around much on Wikipedia these days, but if you want to tell me something...

Spam whitelist
Hi. I posted a request for something to be whitelisted. It was Not done due to lack of reply.

I take this to mean that I am supposed to have replied to something, but I'm not sure what. Or does it mean that no one responded to the request so it lapsed?

Thanks for your help, BillMasen (talk) 16:07, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not sure why I did that. I suggest relisting it. Stifle (talk) 10:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I have done that now. If you have a chance I would appreciate it if you took a second look; traffic on that page is very slow :/ BillMasen (talk) 13:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I will next time I go through it; the reason for the slow traffic is that it's not a well-known page and adding anything to the whitelist is a pain in the neck. Stifle (talk) 13:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Sino-Russian Relations
As the person who unbalanced the article in the first place, I guess I should comment. I think the best split would be around 1858 with the Amur annexation. I wrote the long early history to clarify my knowledge of Siberian history and because I had a good source. This period has little effect on modern politics and is interesting mainly to historians. After 1858 events are so entangled that it is difficult to split them. Benjamin Trovato (talk) 02:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


 * No need to explain, contributing good content is more important than good organisation, which can be done by almost anyone.
 * That being said, I don't think we presently have enough detail on the period 1640-1858 for it to merit its own article. If you want to do that I won't stop you, but I suggest that it won't do much good if we don't have more information to put in it. I wish I could help, but all I know about the early period comes from reading this wiki article! BillMasen (talk) 15:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


 * On second thought, perhaps not. There's a a fair bit of detail there, and a new article could be merged with Russian-Manchu conflicts. That would be big enough not to be ignored, and stop a content fork. Go for it. BillMasen (talk) 16:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Heckling
The inability to truly block socks of banned users is an inherent failing of Wikipedia and it will remain until there's a radical change in the policies and guidelines. That means good faith editors such as yourselves find themselves coming up against devoted POV pushers who've already been deemed by the community to be detrimental to the project. Since you started work on Views of Lyndon LaRouche and the LaRouche movement, at least nine named accounts have edited who have subsequently been found to be socks of a banned editor, not counting IPs. He pushed the same issues with you as he has in previous years and as he is likely to do again in future years (or weeks!). In case you're unfamiliar with this aspect of WP policy, banned editors are not allowed to edit any part of WP. Their edits, when discovered, may be deleted or reverted by any editor without any other consideration. I reverted a few obvious and discrete one, but left in place the larger and more integrated changes. However if you think the article needs rebalancing or other repairs, including reverting my reverts, then your improvements would be much appreciated.  Will Beback   talk    10:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi. I'm planning to wind down my WP editing.
 * My only planned change to the page is to cite the Feldman article. I put the Feldman article (about LaRouche holocaust denial and antisemitism viz. Jeremiah Duggan) up on the whitelist request board a while ago, but as yet no decision has been made (the whole site was blacklisted for apparently unrelated reasons). When that article is whitelisted I will cite it in the WP article again. BillMasen (talk) 15:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Good enough. Thanks for your past contributions and thank you for whatever future one you make too.   Will Beback    talk    21:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * On second thought, I will have a go at reorganising the LaRouche page now. But as far as talk page wars with LaRouchies go, I'm spent. I will also try to chase the whitelist. By the way, do you have any idea why the holocaustresearchproject.org site was blacklisted? I can't seem to find a reason. BillMasen (talk) 00:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I tried to find that out too. I think it may have been because someone was overenthusiastic about adding links to it from WP articles.   Will Beback    talk    00:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * FWIW, links aren't necessary to cite something. I asked DeliaPeabody/HK why the material was removed and he said it was because the material was unedited, an assumption he made because of the disclaimer at the bottom of the page. See Feldman It might be a disclaimer added without thought, and perhaps we should check on the actual history of the document with the organisation.   Will Beback    talk    00:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

quick question
You edit summary here confused me I was curious about what decision you were referring to? The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 15:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi. I was referring to this decision regarding this site . I've just started a thread regarding the edit over at WP:RS/N if you want to share your thoughts. BillMasen (talk) 15:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm interesting thanx for the heads up... The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 15:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

re Spam whitelist
Hi - Regarding your message on my talk - I did answer a question at the Spam whitelist talk page, but it was actually User:Hu12 who added it to the list. I'm unfamiliar with the process at the whitelist page; I would imagine if the source is reliable and it's unavailable elsewhere, there wouldn't usually be a problem adding it. I'll take a look at it, and see if I can work out what should be done! -- Kateshortforbob talk  16:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)