User talk:TwoTwoHello

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


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 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 (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: 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)


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 (talk) 09:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


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 (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 (talk) 20:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

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


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 (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 (talk) 16:36, 1 January 2015 (UTC)


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]


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)


Hello TwoTwoHello. Your account has been granted the "rollbacker" and "pending changes reviewer" user rights. These user rights allow you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes and quickly revert the edits of other users.

Rollback user right
Wikipedia Rollbacker.svg
Please keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:
Pending changes reviewer user right
Wikipedia Reviewer.svg
The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection enabled is located at Special:StablePages. You may find the following pages useful to review:

Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of reviewer or rollback. If you no longer want either of these user rights, contact me and I'll remove it, alternatively you can leave a request on the administrators' noticeboard. Happy editing! Swarm 17:29, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Barbara Snyder[edit]

The content that was added (i.e. a common nickname for Snyder on CWRU's campus) is not only cited by various articles by the university newspaper (please see here and here), but also through Wikipedia's own page on the nickname: "Babs". Hence, the content is not only referenced, but also well referenced. I understand that the brand of a student-run newspaper on the CWRU campus may not seem to be comparable to that of a larger publication, but when discussing a popular STUDENT nickname, how can the STUDENT newspaper not be an accurate and reference-worthy source? Additionally, you may also ask why this edit is necessary or relevant. The first paragraph of the Biography section details Snyder's financial accomplishments at CWRU; how are accomplishments relating to student interaction any less relevant considering her profession? Most faculty and students would argue that both accomplishments are on equal level when talking about a university president.

As such, I urge you to please reconsider the deletion of the recent edits to Barbara Snyder's page. The goal was not to vandalize or to be defamatory, and it is highly doubted by students to be misconstrued as defamatory by Barbara Snyder. The nickname is not only factual, but also widely used: a cursory search of The Observer's page is evidence of this.

Thank you. - (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:01, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Network Charter School Article[edit]

Hi TwoTwoHello,

My name is Linh Tran, and I work for Network Charter School in Eugene, Oregon.

I recently edited the Wikipedia page for the school to more accurately present our organization to the public. However, after a day, I saw your edits to the article and the reversion to the older version because the new article does not have enough references to outside sources.

Most of the information I used in the article I wrote is from organic contents that the school has and are not posted anywhere online. For that reason, I can't make any citation for some of the statistics and information I stated. Currently, the school is working on a new website with all the updated and accurate information; however, the website is yet to be published, so we have no source to link to.

I have just edited the article about Network Charter School back to the version I created a few days ago. Do you have any suggestions on how to keep this version live without violating any of Wikipedia's rules?

Thank you so much for your contribution.

Best, Linh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Networkcharter (talkcontribs) 22:01, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Linh,
Editing articles about your employer is strongly discouraged on wikipedia. The financial conflict of interest involved makes it difficult for you to write dispassionately about Network Charter School. Your edits to date have demonstrated this very well. You have removed information on drop out rates and added unsourced information that would be more suitable for the school website, rather than in an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia articles are built on what has been published in reliable secondary sources. Adding information from your own personal knowledge is considered to be original research and is forbidden. All wikipedia articles need to be verifiable by readers and so any unsourced information is likely to be challenged and removed at any time. I would suggest you would do better to help the school produce their new website and I would advise you not to make any further edits to the article.
Your username is also problematic as accounts are intended for individuals and not organizations. I have added information on dealing with coi editing, and changing usernames, to your talk page.
I am sorry to be so negative and hope you will consider contributing to articles where you do not have a conflict of interest.
Regards. TwoTwoHello (talk) 12:44, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Chloe Khan[edit]

This may or may not be of any relevance if it doesn't survive the CSD nomination but although you was right to remove references 4 and 5 in this edit, I like to think a man who spent six years in a relationship with Khan is a reliable source on her.--Launchballer 23:16, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Really? It seems to me that once relationships break down, ex partners are often the least reliable sources about each other. TwoTwoHello (talk) 23:36, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
I've just checked, perhaps her being involved in a car crash needs a better source. However, do you really think he's going to lie about having had a daughter with her?--Launchballer 02:23, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
There is no limit to what bitter ex partners will do and say. The section I deleted was entirely sourced to the gutter press. WP:BLPSOURCES is the relevant policy. TwoTwoHello (talk) 10:15, 6 August 2016 (UTC)


Hi. I recently made a spelling correction on the article on Cryptosporidiosis. I changed the word exist to excyst. If you're unfamiliar with microbiology, the word "excyst" means to exist the cyst. So in the context "After being ingested, the oocysts exist in the small intestine", I believe the word excyst is what was meant here. It is not a word that I invented, you can find it in reputable books like "Medical Microbiology" by Patrick R. Murray and "Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine". — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:36, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your explanation. "excyst" was certainly a new word to me, so I looked it up in online dictionaries. It seemed to me that "exist" made more sense in context, so I undid your edit. I notice that another editor has rewritten the sentence in question, using excyst, and has added an explanation for the general reader. It looks good to me and I hope it does to you as well. TwoTwoHello (talk) 23:44, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, TwoTwoHello. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Abu Sayyaf article[edit]

You have to understand why I have to vandalize the Abu Sayyaf article, because those Motherfuckering Pigs do barbaric acts like beheading innocent hostages just like they did to my friend Bernard Then last year.

Thank You (talk) 09:45, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

January 2017[edit]

Information icon Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Lucozade: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. Patient Zerotalk 10:43, 13 January 2017 (UTC)


I saw that you just reverted vandalism by this anonymous user. You should know that this IP is being used by a blocked user to evade the block he received the other day for vandalizing these same articles. The IP should be reported to AiV for blocking. Thanks! ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 13:51, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

OK, I'll do that in future. I thought it was probably block evasion, but he seems to have stopped for the time being. Thanks for the advice. TwoTwoHello (talk) 14:00, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
You're welcome. Keep an eye on those articles, as this is 6th or 7th IP address he's used to commit the same acts of vandalism. He's easy to spot. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 14:55, 23 January 2017 (UTC)


Hey twotwohello; you know meaning of edited that D:3's total gross is 5.85 know that mean?! That mean rs 50,000 Crore in indian

currency.You think DHOOM:3 Eearned rs 50,000 Crores? Are you fooling people by doing such types of wrong edits?Not I am : you doing vandalism & wrong edits.mind it.& dont dare to remove my edits in future. Perfect.1 (talk) 19:44, 3 June 2017 (UTC)


Sorry for my dorking about with your edits at Network Time Protocol this morning. I made at least two mistakes reverting and reading diffs. Thanks for the improvement. ~Kvng (talk) 16:40, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for the note. TwoTwoHello (talk) 16:45, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, TwoTwoHello. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

A wee barnstar[edit]

Barnstar of Diligence.png The Barnstar of Diligence
Just a small token of appreciation for keeping an observant eye of the Fred West article. Have a good Christmas, too. Kez. Kieronoldham (talk) 01:31, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Many thanks Kez. That's very kind of you. I hope you have a great Christmas. TwoTwoHello (talk) 11:32, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Same to you, TwoTwoHello.--Kieronoldham (talk) 01:38, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

End of film[edit]

Thanks for your edits at Doubt. The end of the film seems to indicate that she is going through a crisis of faith. If you believe this crisis of faith has to do with her telephone conversation with another nun then let me know why you believe this. JohnWickTwo (talk) 15:13, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to talk, although I did rather mean to article talk. Never mind. I am quite sure that she is undergoing a crisis of faith, but my opinion is irrelevant. The end of the film is open to several interpretations and it is not our job to choose one for the reader. On the 'phone call, I think the way SA freely admits to lying and is amused at SJ's shock is interesting (and I disagree with your removal of freely) and could also be interpreted in a variety of ways, if we were in the business of doing so. Regards. TwoTwoHello (talk) 15:35, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Its useful to indicate the reason for the crisis of faith at the end of the film from these two choices. Your choice appears to prefer to state that her use of deception over the telephone is the cause of her crisis in faith. The other reason for her crisis of faith is that she has failed to have a child abuse priest removed from the priesthood by the Bishop and sees him promoted instead. Since the 2 hour film is almost entirely about the child abuse issue, the reason for her crisis of faith at the end of the film concerning the child abuse issue should be explicitly stated at the end of the plot summary. JohnWickTwo (talk) 16:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
SA gives no indication that she is at all concerned about lying to Father Flynn, quite the reverse, and yet we have "admits to lying", which you made stronger. Would it help if we rewrote it to "agrees with SJ that she lied". SA does not make explicit what her doubts are about, and we cannot put words in her mouth. We could add a sentence about her considering his resignation a confession if it's the proximity of the lying to her doubts you are concerned about. TwoTwoHello (talk) 16:42, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Can you pin that down here. In a film titled 'Doubt' made from a stage play titled 'Doubt', it seems important to state what that word means at the climax of the film at the very end when she speaks this word. If I understand you, you believe that her doubt expressed at the very end is about the morals of her use of deception over the phone. You prefer this understanding to the alternate understanding of looking at this phone conversation as a throw away line which she uses to try to ferret out a child abuse priest. If I am misunderstanding your position then correct me since I think your previous suggestion stated above is quite close to something which might work usefully at the end of the plot summary. JohnWickTwo (talk) 17:25, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Repost to article Talk page. JohnWickTwo (talk) 06:38, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. I have replied there. TwoTwoHello (talk) 11:23, 4 March 2018 (UTC)


Please do not change date formats, as you did at Resident Evil (film), without consensus. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:55, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Oops! Sorry about that. For some reason I had got it into my head that yyyy-mm-dd was deprecated, but I now see that MOS allows it "where brevity is helpful". I shall not make that mistake again. Thanks for the heads-up. TwoTwoHello (talk) 10:12, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Kindness Barnstar Hires.png The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Thanks for helping out a new user in the fight against vandalism Dr Jarse (talk) 11:59, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Avetik Chalabyan article up for deletion[edit]

Hi TwoTwoHello! About 2 years ago I wrote a biography of a living person article [Chalabyan]. The article has been recently marked as up for deletion. Any advice on why this might be happening, how to address it or what to improve would really be appreciated. Obviously, your vote as an experienced editor on Wiki would really go a long way to make sure it's not deleted.

Thanks in advance for your attention to the matter.

Alice Ananian (talk) 14:41, 8 October 2018 (UTC)