Hello 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:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
- 1 Deletions
- 2 Roberts Hagiography
- 3 Mediation
- 4 Orphaned non-free image File:Attack-the-block-promotional-poster.jpg
- 5 Harman / P.I.E. suggestion
- 6 File source and copyright licensing problem with File:Valera304.jpg
- 7 De Valera docs
- 8 G Osbourne
- 9 Talkback
- 10 Talkback
- 11 Charlize Theron
- 12 Possibly unfree File:British Commando.jpg
- 13 Talk:Oxford
- 14 Speedy Deletion
- 15 McAlpine
- 16 Disambiguation link notification for November 14
- 17 Craig Harrison
- 18 The Girl
- 19 Image rationales
- 20 Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion
- 21 Disambiguation link notification for July 29
- 22 Discussion about first nuclear plant
- 23 Optical Express
- 24 PIE
- 25 Paedophile Information Exchange, Daily Mirror article
- 26 Please explain
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)
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 18.104.22.168 (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)
Hey Twobells, I was sifting through my talk page today and saw your post; I'm really sorry I didn't respond :/. Looks like you continued discussing the issue at AN/I after posting at my talk page; has the issue been resolved? I'm not familiar with WP:MEDCAB; have you tried Wikipedia:Requests for mediation? Ping me at my talk page when you respond. Best, Airplaneman ✈ 15:18, 8 March 2011 (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).
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
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
- 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)
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)
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)
- 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)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
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. 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)
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)
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)
Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion
Hello, Twobells. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lenovo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Paul Smith (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
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.22.214.171.124 (talk) 12:15, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
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)"
- 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)