User talk:Twilsonb

Welcome

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you find contributing easy and fun. The Anome

Hello there Twilsonb, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you ever need editing help visit Wikipedia:How does one edit a page and experiment at Wikipedia:Sandbox. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Wikipedia:Naming conventions. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Village pump. Cheers! --maveric149

No fly list

Please see my talk page comment, which I made about the time I first added the {{notinsource}} tags to the article before removing them again. As I made explicit there before you removed the tags, the source does not mention the names being added to a no fly list, and indeed implicitly states that one of the persons involved does not believe the names were added to the "federal government's terrorist watch list" which is probably not even the no fly list. Nil Einne (talk) 21:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that edit was a while ago. I attempted to clean up another contributor's statement, but I didn't read the whole article in detail. I've removed the sentence from the intro, but included it in the 'controversial cases' section with the Police statement that the suspects were not put on the terrorism watch list. twilsonb (talk) 23:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AusDoD webpage longevity

Thanks. Absolutely typical! - I'm glad they're not the people "Defending Australia" - they seem to be even more short-sighted than Australian politicians.
It seems I'm going to have to become familiar with some of those web-archive sites. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disabling editprotect requests

Hi,

Regarding this edit: is it common for non-admins to work editprotected requests? I'd hoped that Plasticspork (who is familiar with the template code) or another admin who works templates would come across it first as it's a fairly straightforward request, and so short-circuited the usual sandbox / exact description process. Nevertheless, in the time that I've been raising these requests I've never had them disabled by a non-admin for complexity reasons. Just curious. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chris, you asked: is it common for non-admins to work editprotected requests?

To be honest, I'm not sure - I can't see anything either way in the Wikipedia:Protection policy, except for the implicit expectation that admins handle (valid) protected edit requests. It's the only protected edit request I've disabled: the others in that session (this edit for example) were all semi-protected.

If I've caused you, or an admin, more work by being bold, I'm sorry, and I'll not do it in future. But if you think it's useful for non-admins to reduce the load on admins in this way, then please let me know, and we can move this discussion to Wikipedia talk:Protection policy.

In any case, please restore the request if/when you're satisfied with it - don't let me stop you! twilsonb (talk) 15:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I restored it: thanks. I've occasionally disabled editprotected requests which didn't have clear consensus or instructions myself, but in this particular case (where an admin who knew the code was regularly watching the page) I skipped it because I felt the change needed was pretty straightforward. Anyway, no damage done. Cheers! Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dmy tags

I just added a rule shortly after it started dating the tags. It seemed to me that they are often at the top of the article, and belong at the bottom out of the way. I also added a rule to move them, however it appears to cause time-outs in the parser (so I disabled it), which is odd because it isn't a horrendous back-tracking regex. However leaving this message has given me another idea to optimise the regex.... Rich Farmbrough, 03:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Oh incidentally I'm a little uncertain about the ymd variety. There is really no reason to use ymd except in crowded tables , direct quotes, examples and "accessdates" in my opinon, and no reason to remove them either, with the possible exception of pages where the access-dates are mixed. However there was some to-and-fro a while back that suggested a significant number of people don't understand ymd dates. If this is true it is a good enough reason for deprecating them. Rich Farmbrough, 03:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]

You will find some chat about ymd at Template talk:Use ymd dates/doc. Rich Farmbrough, 03:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Australian Note-specific copyright template

Hi Pdfpdf, I've just updated File:Australian $1 note paper front.jpg with an Australian Note-specific copyright template. I'd encourage you to check your free-use rationale, given that the Reserve Bank of Australia provides a general exemption for note reproductions under certain conditions, as you've already noted (I've merged the text into the template - hope you don't mind). twilsonb (talk) 04:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And other images... twilsonb (talk) 04:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the "heads up".
I'd encourage you to check your free-use rationale - Why? i.e. Can you see a problem?
hope you don't mind - No, I don't mind.
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No particular issues with your free-use rationales. (I've noted them on other talk pages where they were obvious.) I placed the comment because the generic currency copyright statement {{Non-free currency}}, and the Australian Notes statement {{Non-free currency-AU-Note}} are quite different, so I wanted users to be aware of the change and how it may affect their images. (Btw, {{Non-free currency-AU-Coin}} is quite similar to the generic template, but with more text added.) I'm also keen for some comments and a review of the two new templates as I created them recently.

Do you think that {{Non-free currency-AU-Note}} needs a free-use rationale paragraph like {{Non-free currency-AU-Coin}}, or is "the Bank will generally not raise objections to the use of banknote reproductions in advertising or other material" enough? twilsonb (talk) 05:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. There are a few questions there. Short answer: I don't know. Longer answer: I'll give it some thought, and get back to you. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re Something About An Image

You left me a note about an image of Australian coins I believe. The note can be seen here. Anyways, I'm very used to getting these non-free rationale messages, but I wasn't actually the original uploader of that file. Unfortunately as part of the resizing large images process, the original uploader is removed from the history. All I did was resize that image, so I can't say much as for the use rationale.

Sorry, I just realized that its late and what I wrote probably makes no sense. RandomStringOfCharacters [T] 07:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries - It appears that the original uploader was bilious (talk · contribs), who also got the message. I just wanted to let uploaders know I'd changed the template to {{Non-free currency-AU-Coin}}, a copyright statement specific to Australian Coins. See my comments above to Pdfpdf for more info on the reasons for the notes. twilsonb (talk) 07:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I've updated the fair use rationale of the file File:Australian Coins Front.jpg with the original author and your changes. twilsonb (talk) 07:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hi Twilsonb, thanks for helping at Wikipedia:Database reports/Living people on EN wiki who are dead on other wikis anomalies involving Japanese are a bit of a blindspot for us there. While I'm here I've taken the liberty of setting you as a wp:reviewer, just in case any articles on your watchlist get caught up in the pending changes tests. Cheers. Ϣere SpielChequers 12:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, WereSpielChequers - I had thought of asking for reviewer but it's only been an issue once or twice, so I hadn't got around to it. But I'm sure it will be helpful now the trial has been extended. twilsonb (talk) 09:50, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Crossbench/meta/shortname

A tag has been placed on Crossbench/meta/shortname requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. andy (talk) 10:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please to delete the page - it was created in error instead of a template page with the same name while editing the party alliances in the infobox on Swedish general election, 2010. twilsonb (talk) 10:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Enciclopedia libre

it's not brilliant but i updated the graph for comparison of article numbers Tom B (talk) 20:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! I'm sure that Enciclopedia libre will be happy with the results. twilsonb (talk) 05:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Job Network (television show)

Hello Twilsonb, this is a message from an automated bot to inform you that the page you created on August 9 2009, Job Network (television show), has been marked for speedy deletion by User:WayKurat (note: page has no mainspace links, and 25 edits). This has been done because the page is either pure vandalism or a blatant hoax (see CSD). If you think the tag was placed in error, please add "{{hangon}}" to the page text, and edit the talk page to explain why the page should not be deleted. If you have a question about this bot, please ask it at User talk:SDPatrolBot II. If you have a question for the user who tagged the article, see User talk:WayKurat. Thanks, - SDPatrolBot II (talk) on behalf of WayKurat (talk · contribs) 08:45, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I think you have this confused with Job Network, an Australian Government network of job providers. I didn't create Job Network (television show), although there may have been some move issues. twilsonb (talk) 13:30, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indeed, it was User:Mkativerata who moved my original redirect, then fixed it - see [1]. I guess the bot can't be expected to work this out. twilsonb (talk) 13:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gram points

You recently marked the following sentence

Rosser et al. checked that there were no exceptions to Rosser's rule in the first 3 million zeros, though there are infinitely many exceptions for larger imaginary part.

with {{clarification needed}} in the article Riemann hypothesis. I was hoping to clarify this in the article, but I don't see what needs to be clarified! Would you explain (here or on Talk:Riemann hypothesis)?

CRGreathouse (t | c) 20:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replied in detail at Talk:Riemann_hypothesis#Clarifying_.22though_there_are_infinitely_many_exceptions_for_larger_imaginary_part.22. There is an issue with grammar, and another with the meaning of "larger" being unclear. twilsonb (talk) 01:03, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello Twilsonb! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:43, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Sticky-shed syndrome

An article that you have been involved in editing, Sticky-shed syndrome, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Popsup (talk) 21:52, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
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) 08:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Non-free currency-AU-Coin

Template:Non-free currency-AU-Coin has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:36, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed 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 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]