(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 259: | Line 259: | ||
:::::::There you go again, no sooner do you start editing my talk page do you start criticizing. Look, I think it is best that you refrain from contributing to my talk page any longer as you seem to get over-heated very easily, did you expect me not to defend my entirely legitimate editing? regards. [[User:Twobells|Twobells'']]<sup>[[User talk:Twobells|t@lk]]</sup> 20:17, 29 June 2015 (UTC) |
:::::::There you go again, no sooner do you start editing my talk page do you start criticizing. Look, I think it is best that you refrain from contributing to my talk page any longer as you seem to get over-heated very easily, did you expect me not to defend my entirely legitimate editing? regards. [[User:Twobells|Twobells'']]<sup>[[User talk:Twobells|t@lk]]</sup> 20:17, 29 June 2015 (UTC) |
||
::::::::No probs but, please, given your rather poor advice in the section below, refrain from guiding new-ish contributors: your own competence seems to be in question and there is [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATwobells&type=revision&diff=669233473&oldid=669232793 no need to propagate it]. - [[User:Sitush|Sitush]] ([[User talk:Sitush|talk]]) 20:27, 29 June 2015 (UTC) |
::::::::No probs but, please, given your rather poor advice in the section below, refrain from guiding new-ish contributors: your own competence seems to be in question and there is [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATwobells&type=revision&diff=669233473&oldid=669232793 no need to propagate it]. - [[User:Sitush|Sitush]] ([[User talk:Sitush|talk]]) 20:27, 29 June 2015 (UTC) |
||
:::::::::Your blatant hypocrisy and inability to absorb basic instruction in the form of polite requests seemingly knows no bounds, you seem eager to promote the idea that others are 'incompetent', I suggest that recently (or somewhere along the line) you have been so accused, having been done ''to'' you then attempt to return the favour, seemingly to perfect strangers, you are toxic and it is my firm belief you have no place on Wikipedia. [[User:Twobells|Twobells'']]<sup>[[User talk:Twobells|t@lk]]</sup> 20:37, 29 June 2015 (UTC) |
|||
== Caste System in India == |
== Caste System in India == |
||
I just wanted to endorse the edits you have made on the Caste System in India article. I understand that you plan to submit an RfC in the coming weeks. Frankly i don't know what is an RfC and i am still not sure of what does and does not constitute canvassing, but would you be able to inform me after you have submitted the RfC so that i could contribute to the discussion? [[User:Soham321|Soham321]] ([[User talk:Soham321|talk]]) 16:35, 29 June 2015 (UTC) |
I just wanted to endorse the edits you have made on the Caste System in India article. I understand that you plan to submit an RfC in the coming weeks. Frankly i don't know what is an RfC and i am still not sure of what does and does not constitute canvassing, but would you be able to inform me after you have submitted the RfC so that i could contribute to the discussion? [[User:Soham321|Soham321]] ([[User talk:Soham321|talk]]) 16:35, 29 June 2015 (UTC) |
||
:{{reply to|Soham321}} Hello, of course I will, submitting the [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment|rfc]] in this article will take some considerable work as the article is extremely long, but of course I will notify you as soon as I put the request up. The reason I am putting up a rfc is the astonishing level of hostility I received almost the moment I started to improve the article, tbh, it is one of the worst examples of article-ownership I've ever encountered, essentially when editing articles no-one has a right to delete your legitimate, uncontroversial citations, they can of course refer to the talk page and discuss the issues but to arbitrarily delete others work was for me unheard until I discovered a few |
:{{reply to|Soham321}} Hello, of course I will, submitting the [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment|rfc]] in this article will take some considerable work as the article is extremely long, but of course I will notify you as soon as I put the request up. The reason I am putting up a rfc is the astonishing level of hostility I received almost the moment I started to improve the article, tbh, it is one of the worst examples of article-ownership I've ever encountered, essentially when editing articles no-one has a right to delete your legitimate, uncontroversial citations, they can of course refer to the talk page and discuss the issues but to arbitrarily delete others work was for me unheard until I discovered a few other articles that were also 'possessed' by editors. Some were so poor that the editors concerned even placed warnings in the article threatening punitive measures if anyone attempted to improve the article by adding sources, sources which contradicted the editors position. Sometimes editors even gang up on unsuspecting editors 'gaming the 3RR rule' whereby they work in tandem reverting or deleting work but not going over 3 revisions each, subsequently, you can fall foul of the moderators, a few of which I must say are well aware of this 'gaming' but tend to look the other way for reasons only known to them, in my experience you normally find they have their own prejudices which they fail to set aside, but hey they are only human. Having said that, the majority of editors and admin I've met on Wikipedia are decent people who sincerely wish to improve the quality of Wikipedia which (to be fair)has in the past been of poor quality or obvious attempts at pov-pushing. [[User:Twobells|Twobells'']]<sup>[[User talk:Twobells|t@lk]]</sup> 19:02, 29 June 2015 (UTC) |
||
::Based on their edits on the talk page of the article, i think {{U|Kenfyre}} and {{U|ABEditWiki}} would also wish to be informed about the RfC. [[User:Soham321|Soham321]] ([[User talk:Soham321|talk]]) 19:20, 29 June 2015 (UTC) |
::Based on their edits on the talk page of the article, i think {{U|Kenfyre}} and {{U|ABEditWiki}} would also wish to be informed about the RfC. [[User:Soham321|Soham321]] ([[User talk:Soham321|talk]]) 19:20, 29 June 2015 (UTC) |
||
:::Will do and thanks for the relevant info. [[User:Twobells|Twobells'']]<sup>[[User talk:Twobells|t@lk]]</sup> 19:57, 29 June 2015 (UTC) |
:::Will do and thanks for the relevant info. [[User:Twobells|Twobells'']]<sup>[[User talk:Twobells|t@lk]]</sup> 19:57, 29 June 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:41, 29 June 2015
Welcome!
This page does not contain all previous posts, please see the archives in the box to the right ->
Please note that unless otherwise stated, I will reply here and notify you with this!
Deletions
Please don't feel offended if your comments are deleted, I just like to keep the page tidy, you can find anything relevant to you in 'history', best wishes Twobells (talk) 18:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Roberts Hagiography
Errr....where does it say in Wikipedia that only free content can be cited? Please provide the citation if this is the case. I think it is unlikely, particularly as so much of the media is moving rapidly towards paying for content. If this rule was applied, then most of Wikipedia would have to deleted. The Economist is a perfectly reputable source, and had some detailed criticisms of Roberts work, pointing out widespread factual errors.
If you think "Good wiki writing dictates that editors should place these entries into the main piece rather than have a separate section" why didnt you do this? It is a cover for deleting material. There is a small army of Roberts propagandists who are constantly trying to turn this wikipedia page into hagiography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.202.109 (talk) 07:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- One, I am no 'Robert's propagandist' as for detailed criticisms of Robert's work I could find none in the citations you provided. ALL citations need to be in the public domain and free to access for the student otherwise there can be no guaranteed verification of said reference.Twobells (talk) 11:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Attack-the-block-promotional-poster.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Attack-the-block-promotional-poster.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 06:25, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Harman / P.I.E. suggestion
Hi, thanks for contributing the P.I.E. information to the Harman article. However, it's worth bearing in mind that Harman is associate with such a huge number of controversies and we have to choose the most notable ones with the most coverage. Clearly the issue of what went on in relation to paedophile groups being affiliated to NCCL / Liberty as a whole is very notable indeed and contrary to the ridiculous suggestions of editors such as Off2RioRob the material quite clearly does belong on Wikipedia somewhere. Having read all the material on the issue it's clear that a number of prominent Labour figures were involved with the NCCL at the time in very high profile roles and the likes of Patriccia Hewitt should also be mentioned seeing as she was actually running the organisation. As a compromise and as a way of addressing the controversy as a whole I think the best way forward is us to add the content to the Liberty article as that's the most obvious place for the material and it's quite an oversight for it to be missing from the article. I think this would allow a better summary of the controversy and also mean later similar Liberty affiliate controversies could also be covered at the same time. I hope you find this helpful, thanks once again for your contributions.--Shakehandsman (talk) 19:13, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- Makes a lot of sense, looks like you are on the ball as usual Shakeshandsman :-) Twobells (talk) 16:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- Hi there. You placed a message on my talk page about this issue three weeks ago. Very sorry for the delay in replying. It looks like you've outlined your argument on Harman's talk page. Two or three people have responded to it and you haven't made follow up arguments. I suggest you get re-engaged with the debate. I haven't taken much of a view on it as I haven't read all the necessary links. I'm rather bound up with a project of my own at the moment. Feel free to contact me again when things have moved forward a fair bit more. Good luck. --bodnotbod (talk) 08:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
File source and copyright licensing problem with File:Valera304.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Valera304.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status and its source. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously.
If you did not create this work entirely yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. You will also need to state under what licensing terms it was released. Please refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file.
Please add this information by editing the image description page. If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.
Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
De Valera docs
Having read the exchange on Fut Perf's talk page I can see why you're a bit stunned. However I do agree with him that copy images of these documents are a) not public domain and b) not usable under free use criteria. Why? a) please see http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/information-management/copyright-in-public-records.pdf paragraph 5 makes it clear that the text of the documents is public domain but that images of the documents are not. b) Fair use doesn't apply because the existence of the report isn't disputed (as I understand it) but it's the accuracy of the content that is disputed (?) If my assumption is correct then fair use doesn't apply because images of the report don't add to the article.
Sorry if that's not what you were hoping to hear. On the content I'll say only this; there is apparantly (from reading the Dev talk page) no reliable source supporting what the report says so you have a single paragraph from anonymous sources suggesting that Russell was a Soviet agent and suggesting that Dev would appreciate it if the British government could provide evidence of this that Dev could use to discredit Russell. So you've nothing that confirms that Russell was a Russian agitator and nothing that is a direct request from Dev's government that it would like such confirmation. Without scholarly sources to support either or both of those contentions then the best you have is In 1939, it was suggested to the British government, via an anonymous third party, that the govermnent of De Valera would appreciate help from the British to discredit Sean Russell in the eyes of the Irish people; no academic study since then has supported this assertion and it is generally dismissed as "fringe theory". Which really does fall foul of WP:FRINGE and possibly WP:UNDUE as well. If you really want to make this point then you need to find academic support for the proposition. NtheP (talk) 18:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- Hey and thanks for the feedback, I think everyone is getting seriously confused about the content I want to add, I am NOT trying to suggest that Russell was a communist agent but that dev colluded with Britain and asked them to portray him as such. My whole point is that the content is legitimate on the grounds that dev colluded with London to defeat the IRA, the same IRA whose members made up his government and as such completely turns around his public image. Also accuracy of the document is not disputed, plus the document is UNpublished and under the guidance listed above in your link it clearly states that unpublished documents waive copyright Unpublished public records and those open for public inspection are reproducible freely
under waiver of copyright. However I have no idea under what tag they would be acceptable to wikipedia.Twobells (talk) 11:35, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
- Please read the guidance in full particularly paras 5 & 14. You can use the text of the documents under the waiver (para 5) but not images of the documents (para 14). So you are ok to quote from the document, subject to attribution under para 6, but you can't post an image of the original document on here.
- On the content front I still don't think you have much to go on as there is no evidence linking the report to the Irish government other than the report author's belief that the source, the author chooses not to name, is considered reliable by the author as being connected with the Irish government. You need other reliable sources to support what you want to say before you can say it. NtheP (talk) 11:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
G Osbourne
moved to discussion - undue indeed - Off2riorob (talk) 17:58, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 21:48, 27 September 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Shakehandsman (talk) 21:48, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 22:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Shakehandsman (talk) 22:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
=
Charlize Theron
Hi Twobells, I just want to point out that I removed the cites you added to the lead of the article because the lead only introduces the subject. Everything in the lead is (supposed to be) properly covered in the rest of the article, thus cites are not required in the lead section. See WP:LEAD. Roger (talk) 14:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
- Spot on, apologies, bad mistake and I appreciate your correction. Twobells (talk) 16:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Possibly unfree File:British Commando.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:British Commando.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:46, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Talk:Oxford
Re this edit - under which part of WP:TPO did you remove my post? --Redrose64 (talk) 17:11, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Speedy Deletion
Please note that once a speedy deletion tag has been removed from an article, you should not replace it. You should follow the next step in the deletion process, which is either WP:PROD or WP:AfD. As these are fairly long-standing articles, and as the index in question does appear to exist, I would suggest WP:AfD, as someone might care to research and improve the articles rather than deleting them. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
McAlpine
It's nice to see someone else saying that no space should be given to the smears and fantasies of conspiracy theorists. --Peter cohen (talk) 01:02, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you, it is a disgrace that Wikipedia has helped promote these accusations through the articles talk page, BLP admin (ie Alison) should have been all over this like a ton of bricks and shut it down as a matter of urgency when they first appeared. Twobells (talk) 01:06, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Craig Harrison
Hi Twobells,
The article regarding the recordholder before Harrison also puts events in perspective.
In March 2002, Furlong participated in Operation Anaconda in Afghanistan's Shah-i-Kot Valley as a member of the 3rd Battalion of Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry (PPCLI). His sniper team included MCpl. Graham Ragsdale (Team Commander), MCpl. Tim McMeekin, MCpl. Arron Perry, and Cpl. Dennis Eason. A group of three al-Qaeda fighters were moving into a mountainside position when Furlong took aim with his Long Range Sniper Weapon (LRSW), a .50-caliber McMillan Brothers Tac-50 rifle, loaded with Hornady A-MAX 750 gr very-low-drag bullets.[3] He began firing at a fighter carrying an RPK machine gun. Furlong's first shot missed and his second shot hit the knapsack on the target's back. The third struck the target's torso, killing him. The distance was measured as 2,430 m (2,657 yd). With a muzzle speed of 823 m/s (2,700 ft/s), each shot reached the target almost four seconds after Furlong fired.
This feat is not typical for the effective range with a high first-hit probability of the employed rifle on non-static targets (see maximum effective range). The shot was aided by the ambient air density in the Shah-i-Kot Valley where Corporal Furlong operated, which is significantly lower than at sea level due to its 2,743 meter (9,000 ft) mean elevation.
You can trust the math simylation in the article. The external ballistics software program by JBM Ballistics predicts that the bullets of British high pressure .338 Lapua Magnum cartridges using 16.2 g (250 gr) Lapua LockBase B408 bullets fired at 936 m/s (3,071 ft/s) muzzle velocity under International Standard Atmosphere conditions at 1,043 m (3,422 ft) elevation (air density ρ = 1.069 kg/m3) and assuming a flat fire scenario (a situation where the shooting and target positions are at equal elevation) and a 100 m (109 yd) zero (the distance at which the rifle is sighted in) arrive at 2,475 m (2,707 yd) distance after approximately 6.017 seconds flight time at 251.8 m/s (826 ft/s) velocity and have dropped 120.95 m (396.8 ft) or in angular units 48.9 milliradian (168 MOA) on their way. Harrison had to use the P4 reticle offering 0.5 mil spaced holdover hash marks in his 5-25x56 telescopic sight to compensate for the lack of vertical aiming correction and thus achieve the required aiming solution. The long horizontal line at 5x zoom or magnification represent 49.09 milliradian (168.6 MOA) or slightly over the required assumed vertical elevation.
The Harrison shots were also simulated with Quick Target Ultimate. The QTU external ballistics software, using continuous Doppler drag coefficient (Cd) data provided by Lapua, predicts that Harrisons shots traveling 2,475 m (2,707 yd) would likely have struck their targets after nearly 6.0 seconds of flight time, having lost 93% of their kinetic energy, retaining 255 m/s (840 ft/s) of their original 936 m/s (3,070 ft/s) velocity, and having dropped 121.39 m (4,779 in) or 2.8° from the original bore line. Due to the extreme distances and flight time involved, even a light cross-breeze of 2.7 m/s (6.0 mph) would have diverted such shots 9.2 m (360 in) off target, which would have required compensation. The calculation assumes a flat-fire scenario, utilizing British military custom high pressure .338 Lapua Magnum cartridges, loaded with 16.2 g (250 gr) Lapua LockBase B408 bullets, fired at 936 m/s (3,071 ft/s) muzzle velocity under the following on-site (average) atmospheric conditions: barometric pressure: 1,019 hPa (30.1 inHg) at sea-level equivalent or 899 hPa (26.5 inHg) on-site, humidity: 25.9%, and temperature: 15 °C (59 °F) in the region for November 2009, resulting in an air density ρ = 1.0854 kg/m3 at the 1,043 m (3,422 ft) elevation of Musa Qala.
JBM Ballistics is available on line for free and as such is best used in Wikipedia articles. As you see the QTU predictions are very close to the JBM Ballistics predictions. A drop difference of just 44 cm (17.3 in / 1.7 clicks) at 2475 m is remarkable and can be attributed to the slight difference in the air density assumptions.
The 2475 m shots were duplicated by other .338 Lapua Magnum shooters (actually using non AI rifles) under good atmospheric conditions in a virtually flat fire scenario and with the help of trajectory calculations and some sighting shots it was possible to connect to man sized targets with reasonable consistency. This makes the Harrison article except for the part of deliberately hitting a target beyond the capability of the fire control system (the S&B telescopic sight) credible and after seeing the publicity around Mr. Harrison I created the article.
I still wonder about the publicity given regarding Harrison engagement. Snipers are often kept anonymous for the general public, since they are generally "not liked" by their adversaries. Captured snipers were maltreated and executed by adversaries they observed and targeted.--Francis Flinch (talk) 14:52, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the in-depth. Regarding the release of Harrison's details, it was unusual I admit, at the time the MOD was being heavily criticised for making some quite serious UOR purchasing errors, perhaps there were damage limitations/pr elements involved? Twobells (talk) 20:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Snipers are generally not amused when their identity is revealed by the press and other media. They have a history of being maltreated or killed when captured and tend to avoid public discussions regarding their activities. The sniper must be confounded by the consequences of unprofessional indiscretions regarding his activities. I am afraid the internet will always contain easy to find information regarding the sniper and hope the military organization learned not to seek recognition for sniper actions anymore.--Francis Flinch (talk) 19:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Just noticed this edit. The quote isn't vandalism and can be read in full in this Telegraph article. I think the interpretation is that he would have had no negative comments about Hitchcock, who was his friend and mentor, and therefore he was saddened by the film's portrayal of him. I suspect it might be more appopriate to say something liek Brown wouldn't have agreed with the film's version of events. Paul MacDermott (talk) 11:52, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
- agreed, however the sentence was nonsensical at the time as it contradicted itself by saying first of all that Brown had made no negative comments then a moment later stated that he would have been extremely annoyed and suggested Brown would have made negative comments. :-) Twobells (talk) 19:30, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
- No worries, I need to add a bit more before the sentence to put it into context, I think. Paul MacDermott (talk) 09:35, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Image rationales
Regarding the two images File:The Accuracy International AS-50.jpg and File:Accuracy International AWM 338.jpg, they are being discussed at non-free content review. Please consider joining the discussion. If you have any question, feel free to ask or leave a message on my talkpage. Thanks and regards. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 21:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Twobells, Thanks for providing some high quality images of AI rifles to Wikipedia. I have moved the Accuracy International AWM .338 image by a bot to Wiki Commons. At http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Accuracy_International_AWM_338.jpg you can see your upload. The advantage of uploading content to Wiki Commons is that editors in non English Wikipedia articles can also use the content. I am be no menas an expert regarding Wikipedia Commons copyright rules (they tend to be more strict than Wikipedia English and some of my uploads where not ok according to copyright experts) or moving files to Wiki Commons but lets see what happens. If you like to contribute more images from AI in the future I would wait for a while to see if this image is accepted at Wiki Commons and upload these to Wiki Commons. --Francis Flinch (talk) 19:02, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Discussion about first nuclear plant
Hi Dear user,
It's going discussion now about first nuclear plant. In the article Sellafield (talk page), you will find my comments about first nuclear plant:some editors says it was Sellafield (Calder Hall). And I say its wrong, the first was Obninsk nuclear plant. Please if you have time, take part in discussion. Thanks in advance.217.76.1.22 (talk) 12:15, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Optical Express
Hi Twobells... I would appreciate your interest in the latest conflict here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Optical_Express
Perhaps I'm missing something, but I am unable to find a link on your page to your post here: "Somehow this important section was archived, until resolution it needs to remain live. Twobells (talk) 16:16, 6 June 2013 (UTC)"
Thank you RingARoses (talk) 23:46, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
PIE
You changed "to 10" to "below 10" even though your source clearly states the former. Could you check your other changes for conformity to source please? Britmax (talk) 08:12, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- Hi, there are two sources, I edited the sentence to read 'not below ten' as pertains to the second source; however, for the sake of neutrality I've reverted my edit and also clarified why she said what she did. take care. Twobells (talk) 11:22, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Paedophile Information Exchange, Daily Mirror article
You claim the Daily Mirror article you linked to shows the newspaper 'deplored Harriet Harman's, Jack Dromey's and Patricia Hewitt's involvement in PIE'. However, you link to an piece by columnist Carole Malone. The views of columnists are not necessarily the views of the newspaper for which they write. Newspapers often employ columnists with opposing views and often seek to challenge readers with different opinions. Malone's job is to challenge with often strident, outlandish opinions. The newspaper's official view is to be found in the leader, which in the case of the Daily Mirror is clearly labelled 'Voice of the Mirror'. So you could have said something like, 'writing in the Daily Mirror, columnist Carole Malone deplored...'. But is she really so important her opinions merit inclusion in an encyclopedia? I think not. Kind regards Stephen Newton (talk) 14:37, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- Hi and hello, I responded in the articles talk page to you and fully get what you're saying knowing the approach well, the problem is there seems to be a deafening silence from the left so until something concrete appears we either remove it or leave it and wait for something credible, best wishes. Twobells (talk) 14:54, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for agreeing that can come out. If the left is silent, I don't think Wikipedia should be making a special effort to fill that silence. Bear in mind this article is about PIE not this incident. It is important to record PIE's existence as it shows just how different things were not so long ago. Peadophiles were able to campaign for their rights relatively openly and to infiltrate libertarian groups on left and right. Jimmy Saville took tea with Thatcher and was put in charge of a hospital where he abused patients, but that incident should not dominate her biography. We should not dilute this article by including too much about contemporary events. With that in mind, you might want to think on how relevant a few people using the term PaedoGate will seem a few weeks from now; perhaps that par could go too? Thanks Stephen Newton (talk) 15:14, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Please explain
Would you please explain why you deleted a section from Fallujah, and made a false claim in your edit summary that it was not cited. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:46, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
- Because it wasn't cited, there was no mention of the alleged incident in the source. Twobells (talk) 20:11, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you so much!
The US is becoming such an ill state that it doesn't even allow its subdivisions to think and act on their own (y'know, like they had been doing since their inceptions). I, for one, am happy to see any reference to "American _____" being a major contributor to something removed from this encyclopaedia.
Thanks much! Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 15:05, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- No problem, we must give credit where it is due as long as that credit is part of a balanced, NPOV piece. I read with interest that you are from New England, unfortunately, I spent the majority of my time studying and working on the west coast having never really got a chance to visit the original 13 colonies. I must make a visit to New England top of my must-do list for 2015! Twobells (talk) 14:30, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
December 2014
Thank you for trying to keep Wikipedia free of vandalism. However, one or more edits you labeled as vandalism, such as the edit at Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series), are not considered vandalism under Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia has a stricter definition of the word "vandalism" than common usage, and mislabeling edits as vandalism can discourage editors. Please read Wikipedia:NOTVAND for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism. Thank you. MarnetteD|Talk 23:34, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- WIth respect Wikipedia Vandalism Polciy states that any deliberate removal of content is vandalism as it has not been 'good faith' edit warring, instead malicious; however, I thank you for your good intentions. Twobells (talk) 00:27, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
BNA access
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Chris Troutman (talk) 23:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Battlestar Galactica
We are not near consensus, since the original issue was the national or international production status. At this point your best option is to post a neutrally worded Request for Comments asking whether to include language about the show as an international co-production. That is my advice at this point. The dispute resolution noticeboard is meant to be relatively quick, and with no response for three days I had to close the thread. Try an RFC. Be sure that the RFC is neutrally worded. Do not edit-war the article while the RFC is in progress, and do not edit the talk page tendentiously while the RFC is in progress. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:54, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Bell X-1
Twobells as far as I can see you deleted BilCat's comments on the talk page not the other way around, I suspect you had an edit conflict which is not a deliberate act. Also please note that copying chunks of text from one article to the other is a copyright violation unless you attribute it back to the original source article, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 11:38, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- First of all thanks for your input, I referred back to the OA both in the section and talk history laying out the facts that 'neutrality' had been reached because we had numerous verified citations from both the US and UK which clearly lay out development chronology. What was extremely strange about the talk history removal was that the entire section was removed yet talk history showed no sign of that whatsoever. Also, BilCat deleted my polite comments about the X-1 on his page including the various neutral citations which were deleted out of hand which was unfortunate because I had linked them to the X-1's talk history. Twobellst@lk 17:44, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- Understood, thanks for the reply, certainly looks like an edit conflict not something you can do about the system decides who saved first. BilCat, as anybody, can remove what they like from there own talk page, it is normally taken as acknowledgement that it has been read. You still need to discuss the changes on the related talk page. If you do copy from other articles have a look at Template:Copied which is used on the talk pages. MilborneOne (talk) 18:40, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- Will do, with respect how should editors move forward on the X1's lineage? The majority of available sources confirm without a doubt that tech transfer occurred, including the stabilator yet a couple of editors are constantly referring to one source that suggests that the transfer never happened. Now, I today have been accused of 'cherry picking' but surely cherry picking is what these two editors are doing? Essentially, taking one source as 'fact' over the majority of both British and American expert opinion (as well as the actual recorded interviews with Miles and Bell employee's) suggests npov and to be honest what they are really suggesting is that everyone on both the British and American side are liars. If we only had secondary or tertiary documentation as sources then perhaps they might have a position but the fact is that the sources are all primary, secondary and tertiary as well as the actual video of said staff discussing the transfer. Twobellst@lk 18:57, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- I think you just need to state your case on the talk page and list any reliable references that you have about the transfer, I had a look at Peter Amos's "Miles Aircraft - The Wartime Years" it has a detailed description of the M.52 programme but stops at 1945 and does not make any mention of transfers. The story is "to be continued" in the next volume which has not been published yet! MilborneOne (talk) 19:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks again! Well, I can only state the case and supply the verified American and British sources, however, it seems that two editors are insistent on clinging to the single Hallion interpretation over the vast majority. I will also look forward with great interest to Amos's volume two! Twobellst@lk 11:48, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
- I think you just need to state your case on the talk page and list any reliable references that you have about the transfer, I had a look at Peter Amos's "Miles Aircraft - The Wartime Years" it has a detailed description of the M.52 programme but stops at 1945 and does not make any mention of transfers. The story is "to be continued" in the next volume which has not been published yet! MilborneOne (talk) 19:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- Will do, with respect how should editors move forward on the X1's lineage? The majority of available sources confirm without a doubt that tech transfer occurred, including the stabilator yet a couple of editors are constantly referring to one source that suggests that the transfer never happened. Now, I today have been accused of 'cherry picking' but surely cherry picking is what these two editors are doing? Essentially, taking one source as 'fact' over the majority of both British and American expert opinion (as well as the actual recorded interviews with Miles and Bell employee's) suggests npov and to be honest what they are really suggesting is that everyone on both the British and American side are liars. If we only had secondary or tertiary documentation as sources then perhaps they might have a position but the fact is that the sources are all primary, secondary and tertiary as well as the actual video of said staff discussing the transfer. Twobellst@lk 18:57, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- Understood, thanks for the reply, certainly looks like an edit conflict not something you can do about the system decides who saved first. BilCat, as anybody, can remove what they like from there own talk page, it is normally taken as acknowledgement that it has been read. You still need to discuss the changes on the related talk page. If you do copy from other articles have a look at Template:Copied which is used on the talk pages. MilborneOne (talk) 18:40, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
UK NATIONALS
So far, Alexander Fleming seems an exception (atleast in the length of time it hasn't been reverted) to the rule. However, on many other British bio articles, there'd likely be quick reverts & long drawn out arguments, against Welsh and Scottish being changed to British. GoodDay (talk) 14:57, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- Thank's for your input GoodDay (talk) What are the steps to make it Wikipedia policy? We have an utterly insane out of reality situation where editors are pushing their nationalist bias against factual reality and somehow that has been entered into the guidelines. Out of interest, what is stopping us from editing the guidelines back to some form of professional reference compendium? Twobellst@lk 11:39, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
- You may edit the guidelines as you wish. But, don't be surprised if you're reverted by those who would oppose such edits. On Wikipedia, if enough editors say Blue is Red, then we're gonna end up with Blue being Red. Commonsense tends to get side-tracked on the 'pedia, when there's not enough editors pushing for Blue is Blue. GoodDay (talk) 12:08, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
- PS- Check with Martin Hogbin, he'll tellya about how rough it can get. GoodDay (talk) 12:17, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, I followed the breadcrumbs, disgraceful treatment. Twobellst@lk 12:30, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
- I think there is a possibility of getting a consensus for legal nationality in the infobox field. This is in line with other infobocx fields such a Birth and death dates, parents etc: simple easily verified matters of fact. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:05, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, I followed the breadcrumbs, disgraceful treatment. Twobellst@lk 12:30, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
- PS- Check with Martin Hogbin, he'll tellya about how rough it can get. GoodDay (talk) 12:17, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
As you can see, the resistance to using British and United Kingdom, is quite entrenched. There's not much that can be done about it, without risking a topic ban :( GoodDay (talk) 16:28, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
- Discussion is always permitted provided that you keep civil, do not attack other editors and are not a lone tendentious editor arguing endlessly against a clear consensus. I think you will find it hard to remove the 'do not enforce uniformity' section unless we get some new independent editors. The infobox field is a different matter, it is not currently covered by the article and there is no historical consensus claimed for the subject. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:59, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks Martin Hogbin and GoodDay for your input, we are three committed, neutral editors with no ax to grind bar setting what seem to us to be straight forward and reasonable requests in that the guidelines on 'uniformity' are completely and utterly non-sensical in that the British people are the only people's of the world that cannot seemingly have our own national identity irrespective of the facts glaringly laid out for all to see. I've done the math, we have consensus on both the info-box and this biased 'uniformity' policy yet two editors keep overturning consensus, so with this in mind what next? Twobellst@lk 16:33, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- I'm quite limited to what I can do, about this situation. Perhaps seeking outsider editors' input would be the best course. When contacting other editors, though. You'll have to word your request for their participation, in a neutral way. That way, you won't be accused of breaching WP:CANVASS. -- GoodDay (talk) 16:54, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks Martin Hogbin and GoodDay for your input, we are three committed, neutral editors with no ax to grind bar setting what seem to us to be straight forward and reasonable requests in that the guidelines on 'uniformity' are completely and utterly non-sensical in that the British people are the only people's of the world that cannot seemingly have our own national identity irrespective of the facts glaringly laid out for all to see. I've done the math, we have consensus on both the info-box and this biased 'uniformity' policy yet two editors keep overturning consensus, so with this in mind what next? Twobellst@lk 16:33, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- Twobells, I suggest you actually read WP:CONSENSUS. "Doing the math" [sic] has, I'm afraid, nothing to do with it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:15, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- I've read WP:CONSENSUS a hundred times and with respect don't need pedantic lecturing from you. When I wrote 'I have done the math' essentially means that consensus has been built other than the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing by two editors. Also, I am looking into whether sock puppetry has been employed on the article. Twobellst@lk 13:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
- I have read WP:CONSENSUS and looked back in detail over the talk page and there never has been a consensus of any kind. As I said when I first came across the page. it is just the opinion of a handful of editors. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:18, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- I've read WP:CONSENSUS a hundred times and with respect don't need pedantic lecturing from you. When I wrote 'I have done the math' essentially means that consensus has been built other than the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing by two editors. Also, I am looking into whether sock puppetry has been employed on the article. Twobellst@lk 13:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
MOSBIO
As you can see, the resistance is quite entrenched. Already, my past & Martin's past is being brought up, in attempts to discredit us. GoodDay (talk) 10:26, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- Thats against policy, I've been away on work-related business, let me read the discussion and get back to you. Twobellst@lk 12:25, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
UK unemployment rate
Hi. Regarding this edit, it's not correct that the UK's unemployment rate is the lowest since record began. I think you're getting confused with the employment rate being at its highest ever, but of course not everyone who is not employed is unemployed - some are economically inactive - so the two don't necessarily correspond. See this ONS spreadsheet for historical unemployment rate data and figure 8.1 here for a chart. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:13, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Cordless Larry: Greetings, nice to meet you, the problem with reporting gov stats is that the citations contradict themselves constantly, I'm not talking bias, rather direct contradiction, subsequently, sometimes it is difficult to get proper clarification :-/. Anyway, thanks for the heads up, I will do some more reading. Twobellst@lk 15:29, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- I don't see any contradiction. None of the sources say that the unemployment rate is at its lowest level since records began. If you want a third-party source to prove that point, here's one stating that it is at its lowest rate since 2008. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:34, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Original Barnstar | |
Awarded to you for your untiring and industrious contributions. Please keep the good work up! Faizan (talk) 15:12, 23 June 2015 (UTC) |
Caste system in India is covered by discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBIPA
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.Template:Z33 Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:32, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Are you planning to open a WP:Request for comment?
Hello Twobells. I'm the admin who recently closed Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Twobells reported by User:VictoriaGrayson (Result: Protected). Can I ask if you are planning to file a formal WP:Request for comment? You did make a post at Talk:Caste system in India#Notice of Request For Comment. If you intend a proper RfC, this would require you to state some wording for the question. Though you are an experienced editor, you've previously been blocked eight times and I admit that your participation in this dispute did raise questions in my mind. If you were to open an RfC and agree to wait for its outcome before changing the article again, that would make a difference. As you may tell from the follow-on discussion at WP:AN3, some people have been arguing that you are the edit warrior and that it's time to unprotect the article. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 13:16, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
- @EdJohnston: Hello, yes, I do plan to, however, circumstances beyond my control mean that it may take weeks to collate the facts pertaining to the article, especially as my time at the moment is extremely limited, I need to examine the use of some citations from the very early 20th century and their relevance, particularly as the article is already large and growing, so I must go back to the beginning and check each source then see if they reflect neutrality and balance, essentially a huge job. Unlike many editors, I don't have a lot of free time so must do what I can when I can. In closing, I am unsure as to what an 'edit warrior' is, if it is one who tries to improve the article, correct imbalance and bias, then yes, that's me. Twobellst@lk 13:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- Given the limitations on your time, might I suggest that you ignore "citations from the very early 20th century" and thus perhaps conserve that which you have available? Such citations are not relevant because they are from the Raj era, which WP:HISTRS and general consensus on Indian articles have repeatedly rejected. The article can mention people from that era, such as Risley, but only via modern reliable sources. - Sitush (talk) 13:56, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- With respect you misunderstand me, it is citations from the very earliest part of the 20th century I have issue with, understanding on the British Raj has moved forward considerably since then. Also, the comment was to administration not to you, why you've entered into correspondence between myself and admin is unusual, to say the least, regards.Twobellst@lk 14:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- I was trying to do you a favour. Perhaps you are not in a collaborative mood at the moment. I certainly won't be bothering again. - Sitush (talk) 14:51, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- With a nod towards AGF, I felt your tone was sarcastic and critical, so you can understand why I responded so, regards. Twobellst@lk 19:04, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- You have been abrasive from your very first post at that article's talk page. As for this, well, I really don't understand how someone who has been here since 2006 can commit so many faux pas in one message. EdJohnston, should that message even stand given that the thread was archived? - Sitush (talk) 20:08, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- There you go again, no sooner do you start editing my talk page do you start criticizing. Look, I think it is best that you refrain from contributing to my talk page any longer as you seem to get over-heated very easily, did you expect me not to defend my entirely legitimate editing? regards. Twobellst@lk 20:17, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- No probs but, please, given your rather poor advice in the section below, refrain from guiding new-ish contributors: your own competence seems to be in question and there is no need to propagate it. - Sitush (talk) 20:27, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- Your blatant hypocrisy and inability to absorb basic instruction in the form of polite requests seemingly knows no bounds, you seem eager to promote the idea that others are 'incompetent', I suggest that recently (or somewhere along the line) you have been so accused, having been done to you then attempt to return the favour, seemingly to perfect strangers, you are toxic and it is my firm belief you have no place on Wikipedia. Twobellst@lk 20:37, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- No probs but, please, given your rather poor advice in the section below, refrain from guiding new-ish contributors: your own competence seems to be in question and there is no need to propagate it. - Sitush (talk) 20:27, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- There you go again, no sooner do you start editing my talk page do you start criticizing. Look, I think it is best that you refrain from contributing to my talk page any longer as you seem to get over-heated very easily, did you expect me not to defend my entirely legitimate editing? regards. Twobellst@lk 20:17, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- You have been abrasive from your very first post at that article's talk page. As for this, well, I really don't understand how someone who has been here since 2006 can commit so many faux pas in one message. EdJohnston, should that message even stand given that the thread was archived? - Sitush (talk) 20:08, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- With a nod towards AGF, I felt your tone was sarcastic and critical, so you can understand why I responded so, regards. Twobellst@lk 19:04, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- I was trying to do you a favour. Perhaps you are not in a collaborative mood at the moment. I certainly won't be bothering again. - Sitush (talk) 14:51, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- With respect you misunderstand me, it is citations from the very earliest part of the 20th century I have issue with, understanding on the British Raj has moved forward considerably since then. Also, the comment was to administration not to you, why you've entered into correspondence between myself and admin is unusual, to say the least, regards.Twobellst@lk 14:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- Given the limitations on your time, might I suggest that you ignore "citations from the very early 20th century" and thus perhaps conserve that which you have available? Such citations are not relevant because they are from the Raj era, which WP:HISTRS and general consensus on Indian articles have repeatedly rejected. The article can mention people from that era, such as Risley, but only via modern reliable sources. - Sitush (talk) 13:56, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Caste System in India
I just wanted to endorse the edits you have made on the Caste System in India article. I understand that you plan to submit an RfC in the coming weeks. Frankly i don't know what is an RfC and i am still not sure of what does and does not constitute canvassing, but would you be able to inform me after you have submitted the RfC so that i could contribute to the discussion? Soham321 (talk) 16:35, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Soham321: Hello, of course I will, submitting the rfc in this article will take some considerable work as the article is extremely long, but of course I will notify you as soon as I put the request up. The reason I am putting up a rfc is the astonishing level of hostility I received almost the moment I started to improve the article, tbh, it is one of the worst examples of article-ownership I've ever encountered, essentially when editing articles no-one has a right to delete your legitimate, uncontroversial citations, they can of course refer to the talk page and discuss the issues but to arbitrarily delete others work was for me unheard until I discovered a few other articles that were also 'possessed' by editors. Some were so poor that the editors concerned even placed warnings in the article threatening punitive measures if anyone attempted to improve the article by adding sources, sources which contradicted the editors position. Sometimes editors even gang up on unsuspecting editors 'gaming the 3RR rule' whereby they work in tandem reverting or deleting work but not going over 3 revisions each, subsequently, you can fall foul of the moderators, a few of which I must say are well aware of this 'gaming' but tend to look the other way for reasons only known to them, in my experience you normally find they have their own prejudices which they fail to set aside, but hey they are only human. Having said that, the majority of editors and admin I've met on Wikipedia are decent people who sincerely wish to improve the quality of Wikipedia which (to be fair)has in the past been of poor quality or obvious attempts at pov-pushing. Twobellst@lk 19:02, 29 June 2015 (UTC)