This user is one of the 2000 most active Wikipedians
This user has rollback rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user has pending changes reviewer rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user uses Huggle to fight vandalism.
This user has AutoWikiBrowser permissions on the English Wikipedia.

User talk:Twsx

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

User:Twsx User_talk:Twsx Special:Emailuser/Twsx Special:Contributions/Twsx Special:PrefixIndex/User:Twsx User:Twsx/Sandbox User:Twsx/Userboxes
twsX talk! eMail me contribs subpages sandbox userboxes

This is Twsx's talk page, where you can send messages and comments to Twsx.

Did I make a mistake? Did I revert something that shouldn't have been reverted? Did I mess up otherwise?
Nobody is perfect. As a matter of fact, I am at the furthest end of being perfect. Please, tell me if I did something wrong!

Click on the picture to the left to add a new post!

Your submission at Articles for creation: Draft:Blues Pills (May 2)[edit]

AFC-Logo Decline.svg
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time.
Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
@The Herald, @Drumlineramos, @Rankersbo: Thank you all very much for taking the time to review my submission. I'll resubmit once I manage to get the improvements done. Cheers! ~ twsx | talkcont | ~ 22:18, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Help request reply[edit]

Thanks for your valuable notes. I've started a new article using AFC but it was rejected once again although i did follow the guidelines. Any other suggestions please?

LRMM — Preceding unsigned comment added by Britishschoolalex (talkcontribs) 08:11, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi @Britishschoolalex. I assume you're talking about Draft:The_British_School,_Alexandria? What makes you think the article was rejected? Once submitted, you'll have to wait for a reviewer to get to your article, which can take a couple of weeks (the AFC process is currently heavily backlogged). However, that gives you time to continue working on the article, which I can tell you, your article desperately needs. Your article is completely unreferenced (you need to add reliable sources to the article in order to verifiably establish its notability). It is still written in a promotional manner (you need to observe the rules on a neutral point of view). Also, there are several style issues (although that usually won't be reason for dismissal), you may want to read through the manual of style). Hope that helps.
PS: Try to always sign your posts on talk pages. Cheers! ~ twsx | talkcont | ~ 08:23, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Matt Dillahunty's Wikipedia entry.[edit]

Re: The unwelcome message accusing me of vandalism.

Hi,I'm not new to Wikipedia but I don't change its pages much. Today I received a message accusing me of vandalism, one which I resent. Thr changes I made were to the Matt Dillahunty entry. The page includes a number of claims about Matt's credentials which are without verification. Given how Matt positions himself it is in his own interest to stretch his personal credibility as a reliable source on the subjects on which he speaks. There is no corroborative evidence confirming the claim he is a trained Baptist minister or ever worked in computer software production. Both claims are dubious. Surely Wikipedia is not simply a vanity publication for anybody who fancies using its credentials to cook up a falsely positive public CV. My changes to the page merely called for the claims about his biography to be either backed up by a reliable source or removed or at least flagged as requiring substantive evidence. Without it users can make phoney entries about their own credentials. In Matt's case, phoney credentials is just what it looks like. Please adjust the page to reflect this fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vapourmile (talkcontribs) 23:24, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello there, @Vapourmile. First of all, if the predefined messages my anti-vandalism tool left on your talk page were offensive to you, I apologize. It is not my intention to insult or discourage you.
Now, about the whole "vandalism" thing. The tool I use (Huggle) allows me to specifically select "vandalism" (amongst others) as the reason to revert an edit, or, which is what I did in your case, "nonconstructive edits", which is the default, blanket reason.
Now, considering that:
  • 1. You have been reverted twice before (once by our anti-vandalism bot, ClueBot NG, and once by me, stating assumption of good faith)
  • 2. You completely disregarded both messages on our talk page
  • 3. You ignored requests to discuss the topic on the talk page instead of continuing to edit the page
.. I did feel justified to consider your edits to be non-constructive, and still do. The extent of that consideration was merely that I have reverted your edits again, and nothing more. The message that is automatically sent to your talk page mentions that your non-constructive edits constitute vandalism, which I would say is not quite the same as calling you a vandal.
Talking about the article in question; I don't know much about this person. However, looking at its editing history I can see that the article has been created, established and maintained by a fast amount of different editors. It seems highly unlikely that the subject of the article had a massive influence, if any at all, on the article's content. Now, details and assertions should always be supported by references, you are right of course. In biographies even more so. There are ways of properly going about this. But adding notes and rebuttals to the article the way you did it, is completely unacceptable. ~ twsx | talkcont | ~ 07:26, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the information, it is most helpful. However, are you aware that the strident tone with which you deliver it is likely also to cause offence?

Yes, I believe I have been reverted before, looking at my own page, it was three years ago. That isn't a bad average if you ask me. If however you are referring only to the changes on the Matt Dillahunty page then regarding your point 2 and 3 I wonder if you have any evidence I had seen the various messages you imply I wilfully disregarded? If I haven't seen them I am no more guilty of the wilful ignorance you insinuate that you are of wilfully turning a blind eye to the plight of starving Griffins. With this in mind I would appreciate it greatly if you would volunteer to back down from your strident manner so this discussion can become something even productive and perhaps even beneficial to Wikipedia or something else other than your ego.

Back to the changes I made.

The change alerted to me in my personal page, which I have since read, condemns my remark which said "[ Corroborating Evidence? ]".

I have seen Many Wikipedia pages in which citations and various other corroborating evidence is called for and left unmolested. Perfectly reasonable I think in a public access reference source to have the statements fact checked.

I disagree with your reasoning that the number of editors vouchsafes the material, particularly in view of the fact the source of the claims is not cited. It is as likely the claims emerged on Matt Dillahunty's own biography published on YouTube and elsewhere, written by himself. Ironically the information cannot be falsified since we can't ask every church group and software developer if they remember Matt Dillahunty. I say ironically because acceptance based on unfalsifiability rather than proof is exactly the kind of reasoning he objects to himself, but only when the evidence goes against him it appears. It can however been left in doubt until it is corroborated by a reliable source.

Since it is likely that Matt Dillahunty himself is the origin of the personal claims made on his page, which has since become his personal dubious Wikipedia CV, and since we know of absolutely no Baptist minister who recalls Matt's supposed training, nor any software publisher who has handled his work, I think it is prudent to post appropriate queries on that and other dubious information appearing on the pages of Wikipedia.

Public confidence in the reliability of the information appearing on the pages of Wikipedia is already an issue for the site. I think this lack of confidence is not helped by your pouncing on people who call for verification while offering insufficient constructive report on how best to go about that exact task of making Wikipedia believable.

So, please, Wikipedia is, after all, reputed to be an encyclopaedia of sorts, and not a YouTube useless free for all where we all get our own entry in which heresay rules.

If you would like to do something constructive in response to this response, then do please simply inform me how to mark pages which beg the question "Says who?" without being reverted.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vapourmile (talkcontribs) 09:00, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not going into the specifics of this specific article as it is irrelevant to my efforts. I think what you're looking for are the inline cleanup templates. This should help: WP:INLINE. ~ twsx | talkcont | ~ 09:24, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

You really don't score well on the social graces scale do you? Good luck with being so bloody I'll mannered. So, if it's irrelevant to you then perhaps you will refer me to somebody to whom maintaining the reliability of Wikipedia entries is not irrelevant? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vapourmile (talkcontribs) 18:26, 11 June 2014 (UTC)


I've noticed a few of your speedies -- out of the many very correct ones -- have been just a little careless. MGM_Path Communications Co. is was a merger of two of the most impt companies in the field, and therefore had a claim to significance--and in fact, is actually notable--()we should probably combine the information into one of the articles on the successor company or companies with a redirect, but that's another matter. Even Ani Yorentz has a claim of significance, a major role in a regular company; I don't think it's enough for notability tho, so I changed it to a prod. International Association of University Libraries was a duplicate, but it was a possible redirect, so I redirected it.

Please remember that any rational significance is enough to pass A7--it doesn't have to be actual notability. DGG ( talk )

Hello @DGG. Thanks for the notice! I'll try to keep it in mind and improve my tagging behavior. Cheers! ~ twsx | talkcont | ~ 07:16, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014[edit]

Information icon Hi. Thank you for your help with the vital work of patrolling new pages. I noticed that you are not marking some of the pages you've reviewed as patrolled. Please do remember to click the 'mark this page as patrolled' link at the bottom of the new page if you have performed the standard patrolling tasks. Where appropriate, doing so saves time and work by informing fellow patrollers of your review of the page, so that they do not duplicate efforts. [1] Vanjagenije (talk) 13:14, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi @Vanjagenije. Yikes! Usually Twinkle does that for me. Because those couple of pages were from the same author and suffered from the same problems, I just copy-pasted the multiple-template to save some time. Naturally, that bypassed Twinkle's auto-patrolling. I'll do my best to remember to do it manually in such cases. Thanks for the note! Cheers. ~ twsx | talkcont | ~ 13:19, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the info but help me to correct the information[edit]

Desouza's School shouldn't be referred as Desouza's English Medium School, Rourkela. Instead it Should and is only referred as Desouza's School only. Because when abbreviated it short name is DEMS ( Deepika English Medium School) which is already a school in Rourkela and mainly referred as "DEMS". It can tend to create a lot of confusion across people trying to find it or try to use it in abbreviated form. The school is only referred as "Desouza's School" and Rourkela is the town in which its situated.

So there the Article Name should be "Desouza's School, Rourkela" Places where it found: In the School Diary, in the school prospectus, and in the school monogram which is stitched to the school shirt's of the students in this school. So please help me in correct the above and changing it to real name as it a great public confusion.

I added something before in its talk page but no one looked forward to it !— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashish Dung Dung (talkcontribs)

Hi there, @Ashish Dung Dung. Unfortunately, there seems to be no official website to the school by which the actual name of the school could be identified. So in such a situation, we need to go with what reliable sources tell us, and the school is referred to as "Desouza's English Medium School" in the Times of India (which is considered to be a reliable source on Wikipedia) multiple times. ~ twsx | talkcont | ~ 09:58, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Its not as much reliable as that ! Desouza's School had a website in past but its not online anymore. Well its an English Medium school but it isnt called "Desouza's English Medium School" when confronted it with the school authorities and even the principle of the school. The abbreviated name which i mentioned earlier that's DEMS is uses to referred another school in the same city which is "Deepika English Medium School" , the name DEMS is widely used for that school. As "Desouza's School" its in the school prospectus and in the school diary that its only named as "Desouza's School" so thats why i created a article named "Desouza's School, Rourkela" I have given a refrence link you can have a look to the pdf and it also has a snap of the school bulding with the name inscribed.


inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MGM-Pathé Communications[edit]

You are cordially invited to revisit the article and the AFD. Thanks, 03:12, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the note! I've changed by statement on the AFD. Great work. Cheers! ~ twsx | talkcont | ~ 09:54, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Cut Hands[edit]

Go ahead and delete it. To anyone who knows anything about contemporary alternative music, it's simply unarguable that a project of William Bennett's is notable. He was the man behind Whitehouse, one of the most influential and important noise music bands ever. I included sources from the Guardian and The Quietus, both of which are respected music publications. But I can't be bothered to do any more with it, so please go ahead and delete it – you've won. --Viennese Waltz 08:01, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk page deletions[edit]

Just to mention that a user deleting a "Please read" section from their own talk page is a good thing, as it confirms that they've seen it! No need to revert it. Editors are free to delete whatever they like from their own talk page, with the exception of certain administrative templates. --McGeddon (talk) 16:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Blues Pills[edit]

Hello Twsx. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Blues Pills".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Draft:Blues Pills}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save page", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 19:30, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Cut Hands[edit]

Are you going to delete Cut Hands again, like you did when I created it last year? --Viennese Waltz 18:49, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

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) 16:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry Twsx Re: Mare Island Brewery[edit]

Hi, I never intend to mess things up, yet that seems to be my role in life. If you are able to help my mistake so it's still able to be posted at least as just "mare island brewery" under Solano county. I am just a nanny who has a hard time leaving her house, but this place has gotten me a bit out of my shell, and out in the public, so it's why I'm not about to give up on it being added to the list. I don't work for them. Sorry I'm not edit savvy. Naturelovingnanny (talk) 07:33, 12 July 2016 (UTC)naturelovingnanny

i did explain the reason for the edit ... Defamation per se and BLP violation ( sensationalism ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:543:4400:9000:588:ABC1:4894:BC7D (talk) 02:29, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


made edits due to BLP violation ( sensationalism ) and defamation per se

Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages.[3] The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material.

defamation per se

The four (4) categories of slander that are actionable per se are (i) accusing someone of a crime; (ii) alleging that someone has a foul or loathsome disease; (iii) adversely reflecting on a person's fitness to conduct their business or trade; and (iv) imputing serious sexual misconduct. Here again, the plaintiff need only prove that someone had published the statement to any third party. No proof of special damages is required. =

Graham McCann[edit]

You've accused me of 'vandalising' an entry about me. An inaccurate, misleading, damaging entry on ME. And you accuse me of 'vandalising'? It's vandalising ME! Don't be so ridiculously arrogant and insensitive. That page should not be there. It's badly researched, full of errors and unrepresentative examples, quotes and references, and I'm NOT a public figure. THAT'S vandalism. That's vandalism of my right to privacy. Now please remove it before I take legal action. (talk) 10:28, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello @ The edits you made on the article were very much disruptive in nature, so I think calling them an act of vandalism is not unwarranted. See Wikipedia:Vandalism for more information. That being said, you shouldn't take that personally. The message you received is a generic template automatically placed on your talk page by a common anti-vandalism tool.
Now, if you object to critical parts of the article in question, the best thing to do would be to raise those issues on the article's talk page. Considering you claim to be the person that this article is about, there exists an obvious inherent conflict of interest here, which means that taking it upon yourself to change the article may not be a good idea. ~ twsx | talkcont | ~ 10:38, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
He made a similar treat at my talk page. Some of the sources don't seem to actually support the claims in the article though or it can be considered original research. (Drawing conclusions based on primary sources or using deductive logic.) But that doesn't justify his behaviour of course. Natuur12 (talk) 10:37, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Email notification[edit]

Washuu de (talk) 18:53, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello @Washuu de: – I don't seem to have received your e-mail, could you maybe re-send it? Thank you. ~ twsx | talkcont | ~ 03:49, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

New deal for page patrollers[edit]

Hi Twsx,

In order to better control the quality of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.

Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.

Find out more about this exiting new user right now at New Page Reviewers and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Twsx. 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)

Hi there, my name is Richard Parkes, i have taken offence to your post about the so called Clergyman Richard Parkes & i have contacted wikimedia requesting it be removed asap outlining my reasons relating to certain words used in your article, kind regards, Richard.

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Twsx. 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)