User talk:TwoTwoHello

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


Welcome![edit]

Hello, TwoTwoHello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Network Time Protocol. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Kvng (talk) 12:46, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Many Thanks! TwoTwoHello (talk) 12:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
'Welcs --Kvng (talk) 18:07, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Nice comment about the Cattle Dog - unfortunately everything added has to have a reference so another editor removed it, but thanks for having a go. Canis5855 (talk) 04:04, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind thought, but I believe it was 99.194.158.251 who added the comment. I was the editor that removed it. Regards. TwoTwoHello (talk) 08:43, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

British Raj[edit]

Here it is said British raj is called the British rule Indian subcontinent.But Indian Subcontinent means the vast area of South Asia which is heavily influenced by Indian culture.Indian subcontinent also includes,Sri Lanka,present Pakistan and Bangladesh,India,Nepal,Bhutan,Myanmar,Afghanistan and Maldives.British Raj was British rule in India only.Not in entire subcontinent,no doubt entire subcontinent was either indirectly or directly under British,but History of Burma,Sri Lanka under British rule dont match with India's one.British Raj is only suitable for British rule India(un-divided India). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.227.140.252 (talk) 14:13, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I have put a welcome message on your talk page. It contains links for editing Wikipedia that you may find helpful. Regards. TwoTwoHello (talk) 14:40, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your effort on Al's article[edit]

I provided a warning at talk:108.2.12.242 not to blank articles, obvious vandalism. Thank you for your effort there. --DThomsen8 (talk) 19:28, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

You are very welcome. TwoTwoHello (talk) 19:46, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedians[edit]

You joined the Category:Wikipedians who are not a Wikipedian, which is being discussed at its entry at Categories nominated for deletion.

You may wish to join the category Category:Wikipedians working towards even enforcement of civility.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:56, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Vitreous enamel[edit]

Hi. You added "vitreous china" as a See Also on the "vitreous enamel" page. This is mistaken as there is no connection, and consequently the edit has been reverted. To explain: vitreous enamel is a glass coating on metal whilst vitrous china is a ceramic material. The only similarity is the word "enamel", but it is used for different reasons: vitreous in vitreous enamel refers to the material being glass (which is amorphous & so by definition not ceramic) whilst in vitreous china it refers to the material being non-porous of material (which is crystalline.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.8.231.241 (talk) 09:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Immanuel[edit]

Sorry, don't know how to talk in this. Anyway, I would like a clear explanation on what makes you consider the original Dead Sea Scroll scripture to be an unacceptable source for Wikipedia. I only wrote the facts, without any interpretation. The Dead Sea Scrolls have Immanuel as a single word, a proper name. And they have God giving the name (he vs. she). I gave a link to the original scripture from an Israel official source, along with the translations from the same source. Does it have to be a religious approved "scholar" to satisfy you? Anyway, I give up. You are obviously not going to let any facts which contradict your "interpretations" appear on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.45.168.161 (talk) 22:42, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The Golden God[edit]

I did not vandalize anything. I was making constructive edits, didn't realize the wikipedia SS didn't allow for such things. I hope I didn't offend you Mein Fuhrer, I am but a humble peasant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.136.175.109 (talk) 20:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Then how do you explain this? NFLisAwesome (ZappaOMati's alternate account) 17:24, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Panamax[edit]

Your addition of a completely unrelated link to a web design page was vandalism. Please don't make such edits again. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to mecontribs) 12:08, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm very sorry -- it wasn't your edit I objected to. I certainly should have been more careful. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to mecontribs) 12:26, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

No problem. I'm sorry for not spotting the problematic IP edit you clearly thought you were removing. TwoTwoHello (talk) 12:35, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
It was a problem in the way the watchlist handles things -- I was looking at the net of three edits, the last of which was yours. The only change after the three edits was the addition of the web page link. I assumed that my change would take it back to the version shown on the left, but it removed only your change. I'm not exactly a novice here (close to 150,000 total contributions to WMF projects, mostly Commons) and I've never had this problem before. I won't make that mistake twice. Thanks for your understanding. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to mecontribs) 15:08, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

What is the problem[edit]

Are pound signs offensive to you or something? People see them all the time now. Is there a certain MoS rule this is violating? ViperSnake151  Talk  13:46, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia, not twitter. Markup is written by editors for machine interpretation. It shouldn't be visible to ordinary readers. In what way is
See also: Unified Extensible Firmware Interface#Secure boot
better than
See also: Unified Extensible Firmware Interface Secure boot
What does the hash symbol mean to the target reader in this context? Please undo your revert, TIA. TwoTwoHello (talk) 15:45, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

April 2014[edit]

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits while logged out. Making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of more than one account or IP address by one person. If this was not your intention, then please always remember to log in when editing. Thank you. Fdizile (Dev) (talk) 00:34, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe I have recently edited while logged out. I did log in from a friends machine to check my watchlist but I don't recall editing from it. It is possible other people had previously edited as an IP address from his machine. I wonder if that is what made you think it was me. Hmm. TwoTwoHello (talk) 10:56, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Louise Woodward case - please read WP:AGF[edit]

I note your reversal of my edit to the article Louise Woodward case, with the edit summary note "How can you accuse someone of child abuse in the UK without a source". I'M NOT - wakey, wakey - I am just putting it into a category. Can I remind you of WP:AGF, which your edit summary seems to have totally stamped over. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 19:47, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Replied in article/talk. TwoTwoHello (talk) 20:03, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Please join discussion about Structured Search[edit]

Hi TwoTwoHello. I share your opinion about "arrogant and incompetent Wikimedia Foundation" and would like to invite you to join the discussion about Structured search. You will have a lot of fun. Kandreyev (talk) 04:14, 31 October 2014 (UTC)kandreyev

The exorcist influence on popular culture edit not copyright violation[edit]

Hey bro , I noticed you have been reverting edits for an excuse called copyright violation, I would like to enlighten you with the fact the source material is actually news of what happened and the source material was further cite from a newspaper source and not some novel or song.Hope it helps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.123.223.118 (talk) 15:44, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Newspapers are just as entitled to copyright protection as novels or songs, but the material in question is actually copied from [1] and is definitely a copyright violation. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously as they represent a threat to its very existence. Please don't restore the content without putting it into your own words. Thank you. TwoTwoHello (talk) 16:18, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Don't give me that crap, Wikipedia was built on articles derived from online articles and other sources , which according to you Wikipedia is a site based on copyright violations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.123.223.118 (talk) 16:36, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Octal[edit]

from Vaughanth: my article in OCTAL is actually very constructive. I have reviewed it 6 times since you reverted it and I do not agree with you that it is not constructive. Maybe you do not understand the octal arithmetic system. Octal arithmetic is at least 30% more efficient than decimal arithmetic and children could learn arithmetic in less than 1/2 the time. The article that I submitted is an algorithm (that is easily written in a language such as C++ for computers and calculators) that converts decimal numbers to octal numbers by using octal arithmetic instead of decimal arithmetic. Please undo your revert so that others may benefit from this algorithm. Thank you Vaughan Thompson Vaughanth (talk) 19:59, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello Vaughan. None of your edits have successfully added an image to the article, so I have not yet seen the algorithm. In order for other people to be able to see your image you need to upload it to wikipedia first, copyright permitting. As you are a new editor and not yet autoconfirmed, I don't think you can upload it directly yourself. The recommended solution is to follow the instructions given at Files for upload.
Have you considered adding prose to the article rather than an image? If you can improve the existing article and have a reliable source supporting your additions, this would be the better route.
Another possibility, if the algorithm you want to add already exists on a website, would be to add a link to the website as an External link.
Please read the highlighted wikipedia pages and decide which approach is best for you. Regards. TwoTwoHello (talk) 22:05, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Gentoo Linux removal[edit]

Hello,

What exactly did you see wrong with the content I added to the Gentoo Linux article? I did not understand explanation in your edit summary ("non-notable, primary sourced trivia"). The things I recorded are facts; I also provided a links for one of the references, however other links are available in the article currently, and I can provide more if needed. If the section was wrong I could put the content in a == History == section. Looking forward to your reply. :)

Thanks! --Maffblaster (talk) 23:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)