User talk:Twobells

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


Please note that unless otherwise stated, I will reply here and notify you with this!


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' or the archive, 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)

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)

Snipers are generally not amused when their identity is revealed by the press and other media. They have a history of being maltreated or killed when captured and tend to avoid public discussions regarding their activities. The sniper must be confounded by the consequences of unprofessional indiscretions regarding his activities. I am afraid the internet will always contain easy to find information regarding the sniper and hope the military organization learned not to seek recognition for sniper actions anymore.--Francis Flinch (talk) 19:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

You'll see I've made some changes to this page. The big one is that you had the 60 Minutes investigation as restricted to Labour and Liberal politicians. Perhaps, you couldn't spare the time to watch. If you had you would have been shocked to see Tory home secretary Leon Brittan was the star of part one and the alleged ring was supplied children by Thatcher's child protection advisor, a member of PIE. Greville Janner and Cyril Smith are in part two. Elsewhere you misrepresented an article from the Daily Telegraph, claiming they reported that while Brittan chose not to ban PIE, he had wanted them prosecuted. Actually, the Telegraph reported nothing of the sort and, as you know, Brittan did nothing to ensure they were prosecuted. In truth the Telegraph reported that Brittan had blocked the banning of PIE and was himself the subject of historical child sex abuse allegations. Do you have any connections to Leon Brittan? I ask because you seem unusually keen to protect his reputation? Stephen Newton (talk) 13:50, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

@Stephennewton: Hello and thanks for helping to improve the article. I plan on re-writing the 'Labour politicians' section; changing the section header to 'Allegations Against British politicians' as new sources become available. Yes, I did watch the expose thoroughly, the word 'allegation' is defined thus, in none of the sources cited was Brittan accused of any wrong-doing, he stated that he wanted to use existing powers to bring PIE to court, that's it. [1] I did not add the telegraph citation so why you assumed that I have no idea. Further, I am going to collate the various sources that do cite wrong-doing and add them to the section. However, Your lack of good judgement by accusing me of WP:COI and suggesting publicly that I am somehow connected to the object of the BLP is astonishing to say the least, must I remind you of WP:GF? Considering, I have been one the leading editors helping to create the PIE article makes your accusations unworthy of you, I have never met the man, his family nor wish to defend him in any way whatsoever, what I do wish to do is what all good Wikipedia editors try to achieve and that is to write and edit articles in a calm, correct, concise and sensical manner. Twobellst@lk 17:43, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying that you don't hold a candle for Leon Brittan. You accuse me of poor judgement and of accusing you of having a conflict of interest. In fact, I asked if you had a conflict which is both very different and legitimate in the circumstances. In doing so I afforded you an opportunity to set things straight, which you have done. You claim to have watched the 60 Minutes piece and read the Telegraph article (you may not have supplied this source but you have offered no other), but you still claim that Brittan wasn't accused of wrongdoing. You claim that Brittan wanted PIE prosecuted under existing laws, but provide no source to back this up (and it never happened, which would make him a remarkably ineffective home secretary). In fact in 60 Minutes he was accused of enjoying small boys in women's underwear (you may have to watch all the way to part three for that). The Telegraph article is headlined 'Leon Brittan was "against banning paedophile rights group"', with the standfirst, 'New documents show how ex-home secretary accused of being involved in child sex abuse opposed outlawing Paedophile Information Exchange'. So that he is accused of wrongdoing in very prominent indeed in both sources. I always assume Wikipedia editors are acting in good faith, until their actions give cause to think otherwise. Given the prominence given to accusations against Brittan in the sources it is hard to believe you missed them. But let's assume that this was an innocent oversight on your part. You have contributed much to this article, but not always positively. You have a tendency to give undue focus on the contemporary, with some of your additions deleted because they used unreliable sources (e.g. you presented tabloid opinion pieces from the Daily Mirror and Daily Mail as relevant facts). Stephen Newton (talk) 18:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
With respect, I am getting a little confused, did you not see the BBC sources I cited both here on my talk page in reply to you and on the article page? They clearly state the record as well as displaying the documentation itself. Moving on, the Daily Mail is the gold standard on journalistic research having won more awards for investigative journalism than any other British newspaper and entirely suitable as a credible source, the opinion pieces referred to relevant matters on record, however, even though you knew that an editor cannot remove sourced citations you proceeded to remove them irrespective of Wikipedia policy, see WP:RS Twobellst@lk 19:23, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
I have been careful not to delete the BBC article Leon Brittan and Geoffrey Dickens' notes from 1980s released. If I deleted this before it was in error. In the BBC article it is Dickens, not Brittan, who is reported as saying he would not rest, so you have made a mistake. 'Anecdotal' is also wrong as allegations are, by their nature, anecdotal. All the accusations against Jimmy Savile, for example, are anecdotes. Dickens went to Brittan in the hope that his dossier would be investigated, but instead it was lost and this BBC article reports that Brittan told Dickens the matter was 'not so clear', we con only guess as to what issues clouded his mind. In other words, Brittan kicked Dickens' dossier into the long grass.Stephen Newton (talk) 20:32, 20 July 2015 (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 article's 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 more 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)

I never agreed that it could come out, you assumed that for me, I had expected you to do the right thing which was to have left another editor's citations alone until better sources became available. Twobellst@lk 19:33, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
It's taken you a little while (seventeen months!) to respond to this. As I suggested it would back then, the term PaedoGate has been swiftly forgotten. You obviously think very highly of Carole Malone, but the opinions of columnists are not facts. It's hard to see what you might count as a better source; do you mean a person of higher stature than Carole Malone expressing a similar opinion? No doubt much more is to emerge. You be will well aware of the rumours that have long circulated around Willie Whitelaw, who was home secretary when PIE's home office grant was renewed in 1980 for a second three year term. I wonder if Leon Brittan got spooked by Geoffrey Dickens's dossier and so cancelled PIE's funding. That could have been a contributing factor in their winding-up in 1984. However, it may be that the grants were small enough to fall below the home secretary's radar. Perhaps we will never know, so many documents having been lost in the 1980s. Anyway, it is important this page doesn't get bogged down with contemporaneous commentary or speculation and remains focussed on PIE. Stephen Newton (talk) 11:40, 22 July 2015 (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)

Battlestar Galactica[edit]

We are not near consensus, since the original issue was the national or international production status. At this point your best option is to post a neutrally worded Request for Comments asking whether to include language about the show as an international co-production. That is my advice at this point. The dispute resolution noticeboard is meant to be relatively quick, and with no response for three days I had to close the thread. Try an RFC. Be sure that the RFC is neutrally worded. Do not edit-war the article while the RFC is in progress, and do not edit the talk page tendentiously while the RFC is in progress. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:54, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Will do and thanks again for all your hard work. Twobellst@lk 12:33, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Bell X-1[edit]

Twobells as far as I can see you deleted BilCat's comments on the talk page not the other way around, I suspect you had an edit conflict which is not a deliberate act. Also please note that copying chunks of text from one article to the other is a copyright violation unless you attribute it back to the original source article, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 11:38, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

First of all thanks for your input, I referred back to the OA both in the section and talk history laying out the facts that 'neutrality' had been reached because we had numerous verified citations from both the US and UK which clearly lay out development chronology. What was extremely strange about the talk history removal was that the entire section was removed yet talk history showed no sign of that whatsoever. Also, BilCat deleted my polite comments about the X-1 on his page including the various neutral citations which were deleted out of hand which was unfortunate because I had linked them to the X-1's talk history. Twobellst@lk 17:44, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Understood, thanks for the reply, certainly looks like an edit conflict not something you can do about the system decides who saved first. BilCat, as anybody, can remove what they like from there own talk page, it is normally taken as acknowledgement that it has been read. You still need to discuss the changes on the related talk page. If you do copy from other articles have a look at Template:Copied which is used on the talk pages. MilborneOne (talk) 18:40, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Will do, with respect how should editors move forward on the X1's lineage? The majority of available sources confirm without a doubt that tech transfer occurred, including the stabilator yet a couple of editors are constantly referring to one source that suggests that the transfer never happened. Now, I today have been accused of 'cherry picking' but surely cherry picking is what these two editors are doing? Essentially, taking one source as 'fact' over the majority of both British and American expert opinion (as well as the actual recorded interviews with Miles and Bell employee's) suggests npov and to be honest what they are really suggesting is that everyone on both the British and American side are liars. If we only had secondary or tertiary documentation as sources then perhaps they might have a position but the fact is that the sources are all primary, secondary and tertiary as well as the actual video of said staff discussing the transfer. Twobellst@lk 18:57, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
I think you just need to state your case on the talk page and list any reliable references that you have about the transfer, I had a look at Peter Amos's "Miles Aircraft - The Wartime Years" it has a detailed description of the M.52 programme but stops at 1945 and does not make any mention of transfers. The story is "to be continued" in the next volume which has not been published yet! MilborneOne (talk) 19:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks again! Well, I can only state the case and supply the verified American and British sources, however, it seems that two editors are insistent on clinging to the single Hallion interpretation over the vast majority. I will also look forward with great interest to Amos's volume two! Twobellst@lk 11:48, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


So far, Alexander Fleming seems an exception (atleast in the length of time it hasn't been reverted) to the rule. However, on many other British bio articles, there'd likely be quick reverts & long drawn out arguments, against Welsh and Scottish being changed to British. GoodDay (talk) 14:57, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank's for your input GoodDay (talk) What are the steps to make it Wikipedia policy? We have an utterly insane out of reality situation where editors are pushing their nationalist bias against factual reality and somehow that has been entered into the guidelines. Out of interest, what is stopping us from editing the guidelines back to some form of professional reference compendium? Twobellst@lk 11:39, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
You may edit the guidelines as you wish. But, don't be surprised if you're reverted by those who would oppose such edits. On Wikipedia, if enough editors say Blue is Red, then we're gonna end up with Blue being Red. Commonsense tends to get side-tracked on the 'pedia, when there's not enough editors pushing for Blue is Blue. GoodDay (talk) 12:08, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
PS- Check with Martin Hogbin, he'll tellya about how rough it can get. GoodDay (talk) 12:17, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I followed the breadcrumbs, disgraceful treatment. Twobellst@lk 12:30, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
I think there is a possibility of getting a consensus for legal nationality in the infobox field. This is in line with other infobocx fields such a Birth and death dates, parents etc: simple easily verified matters of fact. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:05, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

As you can see, the resistance to using British and United Kingdom, is quite entrenched. There's not much that can be done about it, without risking a topic ban :( GoodDay (talk) 16:28, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Discussion is always permitted provided that you keep civil, do not attack other editors and are not a lone tendentious editor arguing endlessly against a clear consensus. I think you will find it hard to remove the 'do not enforce uniformity' section unless we get some new independent editors. The infobox field is a different matter, it is not currently covered by the article and there is no historical consensus claimed for the subject. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:59, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Martin Hogbin and GoodDay for your input, we are three committed, neutral editors with no ax to grind bar setting what seem to us to be straight forward and reasonable requests in that the guidelines on 'uniformity' are completely and utterly non-sensical in that the British people are the only people's of the world that cannot seemingly have our own national identity irrespective of the facts glaringly laid out for all to see. I've done the math, we have consensus on both the info-box and this biased 'uniformity' policy yet two editors keep overturning consensus, so with this in mind what next? Twobellst@lk 16:33, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm quite limited to what I can do, about this situation. Perhaps seeking outsider editors' input would be the best course. When contacting other editors, though. You'll have to word your request for their participation, in a neutral way. That way, you won't be accused of breaching WP:CANVASS. -- GoodDay (talk) 16:54, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Twobells, I suggest you actually read WP:CONSENSUS. "Doing the math" [sic] has, I'm afraid, nothing to do with it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:15, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
I've read WP:CONSENSUS a hundred times and with respect don't need pedantic lecturing from you. When I wrote 'I have done the math' essentially means that consensus has been built other than the by two editors. Also, I am looking into whether sock puppetry has been employed on the article. Twobellst@lk 13:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I have read WP:CONSENSUS and looked back in detail over the talk page and there never has been a consensus of any kind. As I said when I first came across the page. it is just the opinion of a handful of editors. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:18, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Agreed, we have consensus. Twobellst@lk 13:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I suggest re-wording ...while non-British biographies are... in the opening of your latest proposal at UKNATIONALS. Scottish, Welsh, Northern Irish bio articles are also British :) GoodDay (talk) 15:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that sounds a good idea. Twobellst@lk 15:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I took the liberty of tweaking it for you. Hope you don't mind. GoodDay (talk) 16:04, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I had to revert my tweak, per Ghmyrtle's WP:TPG concerns. GoodDay (talk) 17:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
no problem thanks for trying. Twobellst@lk 12:25, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


As you can see, the resistance is quite entrenched. Already, my past & Martin's past is being brought up, in attempts to discredit us. GoodDay (talk) 10:26, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Thats against policy, I've been away on work-related business, let me read the discussion and get back to you. Twobellst@lk 12:25, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

UK unemployment rate[edit]

Hi. Regarding this edit, it's not correct that the UK's unemployment rate is the lowest since record began. I think you're getting confused with the employment rate being at its highest ever, but of course not everyone who is not employed is unemployed - some are economically inactive - so the two don't necessarily correspond. See this ONS spreadsheet for historical unemployment rate data and figure 8.1 here for a chart. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:13, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry: Greetings, nice to meet you, the problem with reporting gov stats is that the citations contradict themselves constantly, I'm not talking bias, rather direct contradiction, subsequently, sometimes it is difficult to get proper clarification :-/. Anyway, thanks for the heads up, I will do some more reading. Twobellst@lk 15:29, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't see any contradiction. None of the sources say that the unemployment rate is at its lowest level since records began. If you want a third-party source to prove that point, here's one stating that it is at its lowest rate since 2008. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:34, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
I was talking generally :-). Anyway, I have corrected the sentence to reflect the article's premise. best wishes. Twobellst@lk 15:40, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Awarded to you for your untiring and industrious contributions. Please keep the good work up! Faizan (talk) 15:12, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Are you planning to open a WP:Request for comment?[edit]

Hello Twobells. I'm the admin who recently closed Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Twobells reported by User:VictoriaGrayson (Result: Protected). Can I ask if you are planning to file a formal WP:Request for comment? You did make a post at Talk:Caste system in India#Notice of Request For Comment. If you intend a proper RfC, this would require you to state some wording for the question. Though you are an experienced editor, you've previously been blocked eight times and I admit that your participation in this dispute did raise questions in my mind. If you were to open an RfC and agree to wait for its outcome before changing the article again, that would make a difference. As you may tell from the follow-on discussion at WP:AN3, some people have been arguing that you are the edit warrior and that it's time to unprotect the article. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 13:16, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Hello, yes, I do plan to, however, circumstances beyond my control mean that it may take weeks to collate the facts pertaining to the article, especially as my time at the moment is extremely limited, I need to examine the use of some citations from the very early 20th century and their relevance, particularly as the article is already large and growing, so I must go back to the beginning and check each source then see if they reflect neutrality and balance, essentially a huge job. Unlike many editors, I don't have a lot of free time so must do what I can when I can. In closing, I am unsure as to what an 'edit warrior' is, if it is one who tries to improve the article, correct imbalance and bias, then yes, that's me. Twobellst@lk 13:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Given the limitations on your time, might I suggest that you ignore "citations from the very early 20th century" and thus perhaps conserve that which you have available? Such citations are not relevant because they are from the Raj era, which WP:HISTRS and general consensus on Indian articles have repeatedly rejected. The article can mention people from that era, such as Risley, but only via modern reliable sources. - Sitush (talk) 13:56, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
With respect you misunderstand me, it is citations from the very earliest part of the 20th century I have issue with, understanding on the British Raj has moved forward considerably since then. Also, the comment was to administration not to you, why you've entered into correspondence between myself and admin is unusual, to say the least, regards.Twobellst@lk 14:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I was trying to do you a favour. Perhaps you are not in a collaborative mood at the moment. I certainly won't be bothering again. - Sitush (talk) 14:51, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
With a nod towards AGF, I felt your tone was sarcastic and critical, so you can understand why I responded so, regards. Twobellst@lk 19:04, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
You have been abrasive from your very first post at that article's talk page. As for this, well, I really don't understand how someone who has been here since 2006 can commit so many faux pas in one message. EdJohnston, should that message even stand given that the thread was archived? - Sitush (talk) 20:08, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
There you go again, no sooner do you start editing my talk page do you start criticizing. Look, I think it is best that you refrain from contributing to my talk page any longer as you seem to get over-heated very easily, did you expect me not to defend my entirely legitimate editing? regards. Twobellst@lk 20:17, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
No probs but, please, given your rather poor advice in the section below, refrain from guiding new-ish contributors: your own competence seems to be in question and there is no need to propagate it. - Sitush (talk) 20:27, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Your blatant hypocrisy and inability to absorb basic instruction in the form of polite requests seemingly knows no bounds, eager to promote the idea that others are 'incompetent', I suggest that recently (or somewhere along the line) you have been so accused, having been done to you then attempt to return the favour, seemingly to perfect strangers. Twobellst@lk 20:37, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
User:Twobells, your diplomacy is on display here. If you are planning to make more contributions to Caste system in India and its talk page, I hope you will be able to do so calmly and neutrally. Naturally, that goes for the other parties as well. EdJohnston (talk) 21:39, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
@EdJohnstonYes, my diplomacy is a study in patience and tranquility isn't it? I do my best as you can see from the talk pages; you'll note from the tremendous level of bad faith and hostility I've been subjected to on the Caste System of India page that my patience and good nature has been strained to the limit. However, having said that, editors tend to eventually lose patience when the most polite, friendly and neutral requests are completely ignored, best wishes. Twobellst@lk 08:42, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Caste System in India[edit]

I just wanted to endorse the edits you have made on the Caste System in India article. I understand that you plan to submit an RfC in the coming weeks. Frankly i don't know what is an RfC and i am still not sure of what does and does not constitute canvassing, but would you be able to inform me after you have submitted the RfC so that i could contribute to the discussion? Soham321 (talk) 16:35, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

@Soham321: Hello, of course I will, submitting the rfc in this article will take some considerable work as the article is extremely long, but of course I will notify you as soon as I put the request up. The reason I am putting up a rfc is the astonishing level of hostility I received almost the moment I started to improve the article, tbh, it is one of the worst examples of article-ownership I've ever encountered, essentially when editing articles no-one has a right to delete your legitimate, uncontroversial citations, they can of course refer to the talk page and discuss the issues but to arbitrarily delete others work when the facts, supported by the sources were laid out, was for me unheard until I discovered a few other articles that were also 'possessed' by editors. Some were so poor that the editors concerned even placed warnings in the article threatening punitive measures if anyone attempted to improve the article by adding sources, sources which contradicted the editors position. Sometimes editors even gang up on unsuspecting editors 'gaming the 3RR rule' whereby they work in tandem reverting or deleting work but not going over 3 revisions each, subsequently, you can fall foul of the moderators, a few of which I must say are well aware of this 'gaming' but tend to look the other way for reasons only known to them, in my experience you normally find they have their own prejudices which they fail to set aside, but hey they are only human. Having said that, the majority of editors and admin I've met on Wikipedia are decent people who sincerely wish to improve the quality of Wikipedia which (to be fair)has in the past been of poor quality or obvious attempts at pov-pushing. Twobellst@lk 19:02, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Based on their edits on the talk page of the article, i think Kenfyre and ABEditWiki would also wish to be informed about the RfC. Soham321 (talk) 19:20, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Will do and thanks for the relevant info. Twobellst@lk 19:57, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


this may help in crafting the RfC: Soham321 (talk) 01:41, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

thanks, I particularly like this, very apt. Twobellst@lk 11:20, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

ARCA discussion[edit]

I am sharing this link to an ARCA discussion since i have mentioned you in this discussion: Soham321 (talk) 21:44, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

ARCA Comment[edit]

Are you an arbitrator, a member of the Arbitration Committee? I think that you mistakenly posted your support for an unblock in a section that is reserved for arbitrators, and suggest that you delete it and repost it in the section for comments by uninvolved parties. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:43, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Ahah! I did wonder whether I was in a position to cast a vote, however, I assumed so after reading: Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information. In my experience, Soham321 has displayed the patience of a saint in dealing with a couple of the contributing editors on the Indian history articles. I would recommend to the arbitrators that they approve his appeal, regards. Twobellst@lk 18:59, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
ARCA is a very structured forum. You are allowed to comment where the other editors comment, but only the arbitrators can vote. I suggest striking your comment from the arbitrator section and moving it. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:02, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon: Done [1], Also, I notice that you used the internet before the WWW, was that employing BBS? regards. Twobellst@lk 19:05, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I am guessing he used gopher. Chillum 19:23, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

@Chillum:hey, Chillum what's up? Interesting, I don't know much about Gopher. Twobellst@lk 19:38, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Gopher (protocol) - Imagine the web, but all text. Chillum 19:40, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

BBS, FTP, and SMTP. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:43, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Ah, them I know well. @Chillum:So Chillum, how can I help you? Also, do you know of a way to get audio alerts from Wikipedia pings or replyto's?Twobellst@lk 19:46, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't need any help, I just like talking about the old days of the Internet when it was the wild wild west. I don't know how to get audio alerts from the browser. Chillum 19:56, 21 July 2015 (

@Chillum:It was crazy awesome in those days, Gibsons' Neuromancer made it all seem so cool. Also, want to hear a story about Chillums? Back in the day I used to do pro bono work for the Red Cross in their transport division, delivering van and truck parts from Germany to India and Nepal. Anyways, we would always see the Sahdu's with their chillums by the side of the road, they would lift it to their forehead and shout "bam bhole bomshanka Shiva! (give thanks to Shiva for this fine pipe!) Thought you would be interested. Twobellst@lk 19:58, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


Welcome to Milhist![edit]


Hello, this is Rabtman. I was told to talk to you by another fellow wikipedian, as you may have some experience with edit conflicts. Please take the time to at least skim through this, I know it is long, but I was told that you may have had a similar issue and may be of help.

The current conflict is on caste based pages, in which a group of users threaten to block anyone who tries to remove their POV edits. Most of the time, the people who have tried to remove the Pov edits on this certain article (Nair) have been either banned, or they were new to Wikpedia, and that was taken advantage of by the moderators and (rollbackers?) who found quick reasons to ban them.

for some context, The Nair caste was typically associated with the Military history of Kerala, India and have participated in many successful victories and battles. They were also considered a martial caste which had been known for the traditional practice of the Martial Art called "Kahlaripayyhat". This caste was considered a kshytria caste, but the Brahmins (the top dogs) considered the caste to be Shudra due to a legend that a Brahmin-god-incarnation named Parashuram killed every last Kshytria on Earth. Because of this, the many anthropologists had said this very thing about the Shudra legend. The Nair caste has also done many "bad" things. Case in point, they were a very arrogant community that would not allow low castes (Izhava, Dalit, low castes) within a certain distance of them, these lower castes were the serfs of the Nairs, and the castes were constantly in conflict. The Nairs also practiced Hypergamy and Polygamy in rare instances, as well as worshipped the Nagas (with other dieties in Hinduism as well). The caste is a proud one, but also one that is subject to a lot of envy and hate due to the "Aryan features" and "High position" in society. In summary, a caste that is one of the most hated in Kerala, but also one of the most accomplished.

The problem is, Wikipedia is a public encyclopedia for the purpose of spreading knowledge based on established facts. In the Nair article, the opinions of colonial era Brahmins and magistrates have been taken as citations for the article. Their opinions of the Nairs are based upon an unreliable account due to the different caste stance and/or opinion. Although these various sources have highlighted the 'bad' aspects of Nairs, there is also a lot of positive facts and opinions. These positive points are not mentioned anywhere in the article, and those that are too big to not be left out, are diluted with negativity (see Nair conversions to Islam by tippu sultan, the Nairs even won the battle alongside the British but that is not mentioned). In the article, the Nairs are said to be 'scanty' in dress, worship based on demonic cults, have beef and pork as their 'favorite' foods (obvious attack), known for 'unusual marriage customs' [they were known as the landowning vassals of the king], and much else. The pictures are not proven to be that of Nairs (they and Brahmins were the only ones who wore upper body clothing ;) ) and I have seen similar photos in different places of being tribespeople, all the photos have been constantly asked to be removed by other editors [almost all of which have been refuted].

There is a certain team of editors that keep undoing any edits in which I, or anyone else make that show some of the positive aspects that similar sources have said of Nairs. Overall, the article is a complete mess, and please read the archived talk pages if you can. Its a complete disaster. I admit, I have at first tried to reach some sort of compromise to make the article neutral, but I keep getting threats of being blocked whenever I attempt something. Also, look at upper caste pages (bunts, Kshytria, reddys, martial races, etc) and you will see some familiar users that are particularly active in this one as well.

I understand if you do not care to help, but it would be amazing if you would. The Nair article is the most successful for that team of editors, that's why I give this as an example. I am literally the only one who is still active after getting blocked for a week (I got blocked for 'reverting the 3r rule, even when the other editor was actually the one who had reverted 3 of my edits. That same person had blocked me btw).

I do not want you to be involved in this, but is there any advice you can give me based on this situation and how to deal with it?

Rabt man (talk) 06:53, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello @Rabt man: pleased to meet you. Yes, I have had considerable dealings with this type of 'article-ownership', the type of editor who perpetrates it and how to (try to) eventually bring articles back to neutrality. In the case of the Indian articles on the English Wikipedia, I had hoped to create a WP:RFC as the situation is currently untenable, however, I am swamped with work at the moment and unable to start a new rfc. What I suggest is this; like-minded editors collaborate on the creation of a rfc and I will contribute, laying out exactly why action needs to be taken. Here is the rfc archive from 2014, examine a few to get a good idea about what is required and to help formulate same. Here is a very simple example:
==RfC: Is the photo in the History section relevant?==
Should the "History" section contain a photograph of the ship? ~~~~
and here are examples of rfc formatting. Keep the rfc short, not wordy and as concise as possible. In closing, try to learn how Wikipedia works, especially when it comes to WP:3RR and WP:GF. However, do not let these few editors try to dominate you, nor the discussion, lay out your reasoning, follow the rules and you will be supported, regards.Twobellst@lk 10:55, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Hey Twobells, i'll look into that as soon as I can and will start an RFC immediately aftwerwards. Thank you for your advice, and best regards Rabt man (talk) 07:12, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Internet And Web[edit]

With respect, the Internet is not the "precursor" of the World Wide Web. The Internet was not superseded by the Web - it still exists and existed before independently. The World Wide Web simply made the Internet much easier to access for the vast majority of people.

( (talk) 23:14, 1 August 2015 (UTC))

Hello and thanks for your contribution, is this @Kgfleischmann:? If you notice I have reverted my edit even though I have the citations subject to discussion on the article talk page, regards.Twobellst@lk 10:24, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

No it was some editor from England, not me. Greetings --Kgfleischmann (talk) 11:27, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case opened[edit]

You may opt-out of future notification regarding this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Evidence. Please add your evidence by September 8, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

British Empire[edit]

Hi Twobells, I'm having a problem with user User:JuanRiley and User talk:Calidum who are deleting the some of part in a phrase in the top article that Germany and the United States had eroded some of Britain's economic lead. deleting the part to say that Britain's economic lead was fully eroded. For one I say that this doesn't give an accurate description historically and should be kept that way. I also note that user JuanRiley's edits is somewhat anti-British and trying to minimize the section of the British Empire as an example of before when I last disputed with him, my reasons were historically motivated but he refused to even give a reason to why he kept adding an then-thought unsupported his edits after a long discussion. Now he's back and trying to edit as he sees fit and justified his edit with saying that the word he deleted was redundant when actually the two word he deleted were necessary to not give a wrong concept. Another theory I have with JuanRiley is that his edit might be patriotically motivated, he tries to undermine Britain in his recent edit and user User:Calidum, who's an American like JuanRiley backs him up. Don't get me wrong, I'm an American too but I detest when edits are patriotically motivated rather than historically oriented. I opened a discussion in the talk page of the article (N0n3up (talk) 03:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC))

I'll take a look right now, regards. Twobellst@lk 12:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election[edit]

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 29 September. Yours, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

September 2015[edit]

Information icon Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Emily Blunt. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Twobells, Emily Blunt obviously does not state in the interview, "[she] took dual-citizenship in the USA for tax purposes". You're not a new editor. That is original research at best, vandalism at worst, particularly when you add it to the first sentence of the lead. Lapadite (talk) 19:54, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, pleased to meet you. With respect, you are reaching here, there is no synthesis, the source clearly states that taking dual-citizenship alleviated her tax position and welcomes keeping her British passport. Blunt has on numerous occasions stated her pride in being English, therefore as serious editors we must add context to an article that otherwise would have given the viewer the wrong impression, it is our responsibility to ensure that doesn't happen, regards. Twobells (talk) 14:11, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Pound sterling[edit]

Hi Twobells. I'm currently in a dispute with two IPs who keep reverting edits whom they aren't entirely aware of. The topic is that the UK at the end of WWI became in debt, but they IPs want to put that Britain became in debt with the US, something not entirely proven as far as I'm concerned. And when they provide a source, one of them to be exact, only provide book passages not covering the entire idea of the edits. Here's the current edit history, and this is the edit I'm talking about. Hope I'm not troubling you, just in case they come back, which I'm sure they will. (N0n3up (talk) 20:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC))

Not entirely proven? It is common knowledge. You are acting like you are completely unaware of how much the UK borrowed (and lended), which became a major talking point in the works of Keynes and the political discussions surrounding the writing of the Treaty of Versailles. Literally a ten second search provides evidence. If anything, numbers are what should be getting discussed. At any rate, since you are acting incapable: P. 424: the primary debtor was he US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100D:B11B:6C88:DE0B:DA4A:6997:2C81 (talk) 22:46, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Again, you only gave a book passage and doesn't cover the whole concept. (N0n3up (talk) 00:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC))
And if you keep reading, you'll see that the mentions are that the US was the only one to fund its war deficits and that foreign investment (US) made a significant contribution, nothing of the likes that Britain was in debt with US. And even the investment bit is mentioned as a common misconception. (N0n3up (talk) 00:15, 13 October 2015 (UTC))
"In 1921 Britain's external debts, primarily to the United States..." I am failing to understand why you seem incapable of understanding the UK owed most of it's money to the United States...
Yet another source (P.15 onwards), and another, and another, another, another, all of whom highlight the UK primarily owed to the US making your ongoing assertion that this isn't the case dubious, and makes one question why you want to censor that it was the US the UK owed? If you read the sources, or study the period, one easily finds that while Britain was owed a lot of money by its allies in Europe they were in financial troubles and couldn't all pay back, the money sent to Russia was lost, and pretty much allied debt and German reparation payments were going to the US to pay off the huge sums of money borrowed until better deals were made a decade later.
Then there is the issue of your edit summaries making no mention of if you even read the sources that were in the article, did they support the material before you claimed it was unsourced and removed it... and you apparent complete lack of understanding of what going on during the period: "keep in mind that Britain mostly traded with the now commonwealth nations, the US was an acting ally in WW" - trading partner and the US being an ally have nothing to do with the simple fact that the US was the nation the UK owed most of its money to. 2600:100D:B11B:6C88:DE0B:DA4A:6997:2C81 (talk
Please sign your posts, I've done it for you this time. The first one only states the problem as a sole mention. The second one is about WWII, not WWI. The third one only states the loan problem as simply another issue regarding Britain, and although the US benefited from war loans, it wasn't restricted to the UK, France and other European nations also borrowed from the US. The fourth one you provided states as war-debt as a circled problem among US and European post-WWI problems. The fifth one, like the third one states that although the US benefited from loans during the war, it was the result to loan various European nations, not only Britain. None of the sources provided imply that Britain was in heavy debt to the US. Not to mention that in the fifth one, the European allies decided to dismiss the debts to US since they joined the war at latter stage of the war. And in regards to British trading with the commonwealth, Britain had always relied on her colonies for resources, including economically, reducing the war-loan problem of Britain with US, which was only one of many problems for Britain at the time. Since the current topic of argument isn't 100% concise nor accurate, it was better to generalize along the lines of what happened during and after WWI, especially since it made a very small part of the article, being only part of a sentence. (N0n3up (talk) 14:59, 13 October 2015 (UTC))
So your misreading/completely ignoring sources continues. The second source is called British Policy and European Reconstruction After the First World War and links to a page talking about the issue during the 1920s...
The sources all support the assertion in the article, that US was the primarily holder of Britain's debt following the war. You are just ignoring the evidence because you do not like it.
You have also failed to address the question posed to you: did you read the source in the article before you made your edits with your weak edit summaries of being unsourced...2600:100D:B118:9B47:A06E:8032:C577:F046 (talk) 16:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
2600:100D:B118:9B47:A06E:8032:C577:F046 Because I don't like it? That's nice. Before you fruitpick the sources, please read them carefully. I can assure you I did. In regards to the second source, you misread the part where it mentions WWII, something you should've noticed when Churchill was mentioned. Britain wasn't the only one involved. This war-debt became a contributing part to the development of the great depression, and it was various European nations involved. Your sources are right, but Britain's debt was a factor that had the US, Britain and other nations involved, not only the US and Britain. (N0n3up (talk) 04:32, 14 October 2015 (UTC))
I did not misread the source, I provided yet another source that supports what the article stated - that UK owed the US 800 million. Your inability to stay on point is shocking, the accusation of cherrypickibg laughable, and your avoidance of answering questions posed to you notable.2600:1015:B128:48E7:FD42:D661:BA6B:D8B0 (talk) 17:06, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
2600:1015:B128:48E7:FD42:D661:BA6B:D8B0 (talk)The sources that you provided give a variable image of the situation in discussion and there is much more to the whole image here. Clearly you only wan't to prove you're point right, and you are, to an extent. But the version that you're implying is a bit misleading. And in regards to the last part of your message (the part that's not a borderline personal-attack) I read the sources which you provided and it seems that your only interest lies in being proven right and with a noticeable hint of patriotism in your part (and such a lovely "pathetic" edit summary you provided). But before we can come to a conclusion, please consider the sources that you posted because apart from the fact that Britain was in debt to the US (keep in mind this is "after" WWI), there was a chain of events included in the war-debt, something your intended previous version doesn't cover and thus, like I said, misleading. You said you had another source, can you post it please? Thanks. (N0n3up (talk) 18:22, 15 October 2015 (UTC))
The discussion will continue here where I moved the conversation. (N0n3up (talk) 18:57, 15 October 2015 (UTC))
  • Apologies, I have been abroad with little time to access Wikipedia, have you resolved the issue successfully? From memory, the UK was indeed in debt to the USA following WW2. I believe that America issued a very favourable loan as Great Britain was essentially bankrupt following the fight to defeat the nazi's. That was one of the reasons (among many) that the British Empire was rolled back, essentially Germany looked with great envy at England and decided that if they couldn't match or overtake the British they would bankrupt them. The most astonishing thing about the issue is that although they tried it twice, employing devasting war against Great Britain, the British did not demand overly punitive reparations; unlike the French whose punishing reparations helped bring about WW2. (thanks France!) I remember with great interest how the German high command boasted to British Intelligence following their defeat that they had learned military adventurism was not the way to defeat the UK, rather economic conflict was the solution. Subsequently, you could argue that the creation of the EEC then the EU were strategies that followed such a policy.... Twobells (talk) 10:49, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case proposed decision posted[edit]

Hi Twobells. A decision has been proposed in the Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case, for which you are on the notification list. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 20:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC) (via MediaWiki message delivery (talk))

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject historian and newcomer of the year awards now open![edit]

On behalf of the Military history WikiProject's Coordinators, we would like to extend an invitation to nominate deserving editors for the 2015 Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards. The nomination period will run from 7 December to 23:59 13 December, with the election phase running from 14 December to 23:59 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)


Hello T. I wanted to let you know that Old Moonraker has not edited since August of 2012 so it is unlikely that you will get a response tp your post on his talk page. I still miss him and his editing. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 13:51, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh dear, I hope he is okay? Yes, his style of editing and manner in helping resolve editor conflicts was first class. Hmm, are you familiar with the 100 Years War article? If not, perhaps I will have to do it myself, regards. Twobells (talk) 13:59, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello again. I am only familiar with plays and films about that era. There is too much artistic license taken by them for what I know to be of any help. There are several wikiprojects listed on the talk page for the article so you might ask your questions on one of their talk pages. I wish you success on your efforts to improve the article. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 16:45, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Fantastic, I will refer my queries to editors familiar with the wikiprojects, best wishes and thanks again! Twobells (talk) 13:27, 14 January 2016 (UTC)


Hello Twobells. You might like to look at my page: User:Biscuittin/Reform of Wikipedia. This message is just for information. Biscuittin (talk) 00:08, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

@Biscuittin: Interesting, you raise many issues dear to my heart. Subsequently, you have my full support and I will do whatever I can to further your attempts at reform.Twobells (talk) 14:32, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Twobells. If you have any ideas for reforming Wikipedia, please post them at User:Biscuittin/Reform of Wikipedia. The more suggestions we can get, the better. Biscuittin (talk) 16:15, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Np @Biscuittin:, I'll have a good think about the issues involved, then lay them out for your perusal later.Twobells (talk) 18:41, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Firearms policy[edit]

This was previously discussed and consensus went against you. You have not even attempted to gain new consensus. It is your responsibility to gain consensus for this. Guy (Help!) 11:19, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh please, your desperation to keep uncontentious, reliably-sourced material off the article is just so sad.Twobells (talk) 11:22, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Wiki and the F-35 and SS[edit]

1) Wikipedia is for neutral edits, not military discussion

2) No, if you read Janes and other forums, SPEAR 5 will be the long range strike capability for the F-35.

Phd8511 (talk) 15:40, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

@Phd8511 I was referring to the carrier group deep penetration solution. Wikipedia Talk and articles are not for discussion, editor talk is for discussing issues related to the articles but I understand if you don't want to discuss it, thanks anyway. Twobells (talk) 15:51, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
What is that? Haven't heard of such a thing.Phd8511 (talk) 02:42, 1 March 2016 (UTC)