User talk:Twobells

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search



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[edit]

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 (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[edit]


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[edit]

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[edit]

File Copyright problem

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[edit]

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 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)
ok, thanks very much for your guidance.Twobells (talk) 14:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

G Osbourne[edit]

moved to discussion - undue indeed - Off2riorob (talk) 17:58, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Twobells. You have new messages at Shakehandsman's talk page.
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)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Twobells. You have new messages at Shakehandsman's talk page.
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[edit]

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[edit]

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)


Re this edit - under which part of WP:TPO did you remove my post? --Redrose64 (talk) 17:11, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

soz, that was a mistake and you have my full apology. Twobells (talk) 17:07, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion[edit]

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)


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)

Disambiguation link notification for November 14[edit]

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.

HMS Aeneas (P427) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to DCNS
Mistral (missile) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to DCNS

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:24, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Craig Harrison[edit]

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)

The Girl[edit]

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[edit]

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 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)

Disambiguation link notification for July 29[edit]

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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion about first nuclear plant[edit]

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. (talk) 12:15, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Optical Express[edit]

Hi Twobells... I would appreciate your interest in the latest conflict here.

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)


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)
Thanks for that, that version is more neutral. Britmax (talk) 19:35, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Paedophile Information Exchange, Daily Mirror article[edit]

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[edit]

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![edit]

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[edit]

Information icon 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[edit]

Hello, Twobells. Please check your email – you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

Chris Troutman (talk) 23:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring at The 4400[edit]

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 4 days for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

The full report is at WP:AN3#User:Twobells reported by User:AussieLegend (Result: Blocked). Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 23:46, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Twobells (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)

Request reason:

I have gone the extra mile to reach consensus as reflected in my replies on the 3RR noticeboard. There is no reason to block me as consensus has been reached, the only editor not in consensus is Drmargi and that is no longer relevant. Instead the block seems a punishment as there is no danger of further edit warring by myself or Drivthrughosts as reflected by consensus reached here [2]. I understand why the block was imposed but the 3RR was broken because I believed it was Wiki policy to revert the article back to the most stable version once a 3RR complaint had been made. You'll notice I have not much of a history of edit warring; however, I admit that I did lose my patience with editors who became for whatever reason intractable and will do my best to resort to debate in the future. I am beginning to understand better how editors use reverts here and will apply myself to doing the same. What I find odd is that EdJohnston seemed happy that consensus had been reached seeing no reason for action as reflected here: This complaint might be closed with no action if User:Twobells will make any kind of a promise that guarantees that his war about US-UK coproductions won't continue. Which I did yet was still blocked.

Decline reason:

First off you were edit warring. You say you have no history of edit warring but it is clear from your block history that you do. You say that you "believed it was Wiki policy to revert the article back to the most stable version once a 3RR complaint had been made" however the edit summary for that revert is "See DRN, users colluding, employing 'consensus' argument to remove legitimate edits". I find your unblock request to be disingenuous. Chillum 01:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.

Yes, that is correct, I didn't realize I had to put that as well as the original reason in the edit summary. You say I was 'edit warring' as though I was doing it alone in a vacuum yet I don't have a long history of edit warring at all, I believe it to be a total of 4 blocks in 7 years before this sad episode so where on earth did you get that idea? Certainly not for my block log. As for your suggestion my unblock request was insincere, talk about 'good faith' and you're an administrator? what a joke! Twobells (talk) 01:21, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I apologize if I assumed bad faith. Let me explain where I am coming from.

You saying you don't have a history of edit warring at all is directly at odds with your block log. It means I know that you have been in this situation 4 times before(possibly more) and should know not to edit war. Edit warring does not need to happen in a vacuum to be a violation, it is not allowed under any circumstances except for those listed at WP:NOT3RR. At this point ignorance of the policy is not an explanation, you have been here for 10 years and you should know how it works.

4 days is a short block considering edit war blocks normally escalate in duration and you have been blocked for a week for edit warring in the past. It could have been a 2 week block. Chillum 02:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply and apology, it of course accepted in the manner it was given. Friends? I never said I had no edit warring history, I stated that I had little (4 prior to this over many years) and on reading the block history adjusted the message to reflect that. To be honest, I don't usually have much use for edit warring and its complexities as usually editors and I reach consensus on controversial matters; however, it has been two editors prevarication, employing NPR citing WP:Synth for primary 3rd party, secondary and tertiary sources which specifically state the conclusion which is that these two tv series are international co productions as reflected by the numerous above cites yet I was constantly reverted when that sources were added. Their arguments for its removal are 'consensus' yet the sources show no contention and then employ NOR when they run out of other excuses. If it turns out and I hope that isn't the case that editors have been using these policies as a way to prevent article neutrality then work needds to be done repairing any other article that uses such underhand methods. Anyway, I am off to Gibraltar for a few days and when I return I hope I may put some questions to you regarding some questions about what happened on the Admin Board. Twobells (talk) 10:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Given that you've now received a sixth block for edit-warring, claiming "I don't usually have much use for edit warring" seems rather disingenuous. --AussieLegend () 14:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Apologize right now, don't you dare try suggesting that my behaviour was insincere and devious when all I was trying to was move the article to neutrality. Twobells (talk) 16:54, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

@User:AussieLegend I wish you would read what people had previous written! There were four blocks and one block was lifted earlier in my editorial career, prior to this partisan mess. I stated that these figures were BEFORE this recent event yet you have chosen for whatever reason to combine them all. Twobells (talk) 09:56, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
I did read what was written. You specifically wrote that you had no edit-warring history other than one block "when [you] first joined many years ago" and that clearly was not the case. Even now, you're arguing only four blocks when there were five "prior to this partisan mess". You specifically said "a total of 4 blocks in 7 years before this sad episode". --AussieLegend () 14:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm still waiting for you to answer my question asking why you wrongly tried to suggest I used WP:Synth or why did you attempt to revert edits using a call for 'consensus' on non-contentious material? Also, I did believe that until I checked my block log and immediately rectified that (you then accused me again of interfering with my own edits on my own talk page). I believe the 5th block was lifted and didn't count and stressed previously that I calculated the number of blocks 'before this partisan mess' yet you chose to then include this block even after the previous editor made clear that he was referring to the old block history! Twobells (talk) 16:31, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay, since you want to count blocks I see 6 blocks for edit warring with 2 that were unblocked. The most recent unblock(only 9 days ago) was done based on your word[1] not to edit war anymore. A word you broke. I find you not counting this to be consistent with you removing negative content from this page related to your block review(yes I can see that).

Frankly the more you say the less it matches reality and the less reasonable it is to assume good faith. Just sit out your block and stop trying to downplay your recent and prolonged history of edit warring. Chillum 17:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Editing posts[edit]

This regards the comment you made at WP:AN3, "I haven't knowingly edited anyone's edits and I don't see any problem with correcting my own".[2] Whether you knowingly edited my post is irrelevant, you did. Make sure by using the "Show preview" button that you haven't done something that was unintended. Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines provides guidance on this and editing your own posts. Specifically, WP:REDACT says "Removing or substantially altering a comment after someone else has replied may deprive the reply of its original context ... If it is necessary to make such an edit, consider the following steps". I had already replied to posts that you had made but your "corrections" substantially altered the context of your post, adding content that was not answered in my post because it did not exist when I posted. This is another example of inappropriately editing posts after they've been replied to. You've changed "no block history" to "not much of a history", making the admin's reply, which quoted that section, inaccurate to somebody who doesn't bother checking the edit history. In short, you should only edit your posts after somebody has replied to them if absolutely necessary, or to make very minor changes, such as fixing spelling or formatting. You might review WP:TPG over the next four days. --AussieLegend () 07:52, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I changed that after seeing that there was more than the two block's having forgotten about 2011, I then mentioned that in the edit the reason for the change. I thought that chronology of the events are what is most important but I see you don't think so. Twobells (talk) 10:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
In closing I will never forget the way you have behaved, chasing after other editors to gang up on me in order to push your agenda. Yes, I've read your messages to various editors. You've employed WP:Synth in your arguments when that is not relative as all the sources confirm a conclusion that directly and explicitly supports the numerous sources. You and DrMargi then have tried to suggest that 'consensus' has not been reached as a tool to prevent the addition of essentially uncontentious material when consensus is used for contentious matters, not straight forward genuine facts supported by primary 3rd party, secondary and tertiary sources. Drmargi has employed NPR in her argument when I have used the non-contentious sources that confirm that the country of origin for tv international co productions are the two counties (or more) involved and Wikipedia usually reflects that. However, you have taken upon yourself to interfere citing specious incorrect arguments and sophistry to push a US-centric position. Twobells (talk) 10:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
"you have behaved, chasing after other editors to gang up on me in order to push your agenda" - That's pretty much a personal attack. I have contacted NO other editors in order to "gang up on [you] in order to push [my] agenda". If you read the instructions at WP:AN3, it says "You must notify any user you report" which is why I left a message on your page. It is also considered appropriate, but is not mandatory, to notify editors that you have mentioned in a discussion, which is why I contacted other editors. You've been editing Wikipedia for over 10 years, but you seem unfamiliar with many policies, guidelines and practices. You would do well to become more familiar with them, or your blocks will become progressively longer. --AussieLegend () 14:29, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Thats rich, citing WP:NPA that really is, after everything you've done. Is this another incorrectly argued wiki policy like your recent pushing WP: Synth on my secondary or tertiary sources that confirm 100% the statements of the sources or pushing for consensus on non-contentious edits as a way of preventing source material being added? Or perhaps the BSG 2004 NOR which was seeming just ignored by everyone to suit your position. Yes, you did employ sophistry, you proceeded to mention in your report certain editors which were not required for the Admin board you then issued messages on their boards stating there is is an on-going discussion where they were mentioned, forgetting of course to state that it was YOU who mentioned them. Remember, I had never inter-acted with you ever previously and yet the very first thing you did was issue a 3RR notice. I was the only one trying to discuss the issue on the 4400 board, did you go there and try to resolve the issue? No, Following discussions on the BSG 2004 article it took weeks before anyone involved admin yet you proceeded immediately there following the DRN. Twobells (talk) 16:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
When reporting at WP:AN3 it is necessary to include all relevant information, which is why the editors were mentioned. It is not necessary to tell editors that you mentioned them when notifying, they can find that when/if they check the report and, in any case, it's irrelevant. I did not issue a 3RR notice ({{uw-3rr}}, I issued an edit warring notice ({{uw-ew}}) because you were clearly edit-warring, as evidenced by the fact that you are now blocked. You only went to the talk page after I warned you, so you don't get points for that. I didn't need to go to the talk page because I had no part in the edit-war. All you seem to be doing here is trying to pass the blame onto somebody else, and it's clear that you're very much the one at fault, again as evidenced by your current block. --AussieLegend () 16:58, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
'Passing the blame'? You still don't get do you? I fully accept the mistake I made in the reverting, my further mistake was that I allowed you and Drmargi to trap me in your little sick game, I know exactly what you did, and you are now using this block as yet another tool to hit me with, you are a disgrace to Wikipedia. Twobells (talk) 17:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • When I return from Gibraltar I will be requesting a review of policy by 3rd party editors on the use of 3RR, 'consensus' and 'edit reverting in relation to 'tag-teaming' the removal of legitimate non-contentious cited sources and their use in preventing editors attempting to bring an article from pov-pushing into neutrality. And if I find that my entirely non-contentious edits are still being interfered with I will as first point of reference return to the Admin Board and seek guidance because I won't let you maliciously trap me ever again. Twobells (talk) 10:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Once again, do NOT edit posts made by other editors as you did here. --AussieLegend () 16:58, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Would you just get off my talk page please and stay off, your constant bickering is now becoming harassment. and I reserve the wright to edit my own talk page thank you. Twobells (talk) 17:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
You don't have the right to edit posts made by other editors. That can get you into as much trouble as edit-warring can. That you've done it twice in two days, and both times to my posts only, makes your actions more than a little suspicious and clearly, others can see it. --AussieLegend () 17:05, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay that is enough from both of you. @AussieLegend: please stop posting here until this block is expired. The reason I am asking this is that Twobells is becoming provoked and I am about to ask Twobells to stop.

Twobells, further personal attacks[3] while blocked will result in loss of your editing privileges for the duration of the block. Chillum 17:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Talk page access removed[edit]

Twobells I told AussieLegend to stay away from this page and for you to not refer to him for the duration of the block. Since you insist on continuing to comment on this user after I ask him to leave I am removing your talk page access for the duration of the block.

Please use this time to consider what this was the result of your actions and not anyone else's plans against you. Chillum 17:52, 23 January 2015 (UTC)