| Revision as of 15:53, 24 February 2011 editBillMasen (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers2,631 edits →Sino-Russian Relations← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:53, 24 February 2011 edit undoBillMasen (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers2,631 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
| ::No need to explain, contributing good content is more important than good organisation, which can be done by almost anyone. | ::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! ] (]) 15:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC) | ::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! ] (]) 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 ]. That would be big enough not to be ignored, and stop a content fork. Go for it. ] (]) 16:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 16:53, 24 February 2011
I'm not around much on Misplaced Pages 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)
- 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)
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)