User talk:Twillisjr

Please don't add YouTube channels to "External links" sections

Please don't add YouTube channels to "External links" sections - in nearly all cases that would be a violation of WP:EL and WP:NOTDIR. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 20:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please also change this on Jeffree Star Twillisjr (talk) 20:37, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 2024

Hello. Your recent edit appears to have added the name of a non-notable entity to a list that normally includes only notable entries. In general, a person, organization or product added to a list should have a pre-existing article before being added to most lists. If you wish to create such an article, please first confirm that the subject qualifies for a separate, stand-alone article according to Wikipedia's notability guideline. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 17:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 2024

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at List of United States Navy SEALs. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. He has a ref showing he was a seal, but he does not have an English Wikipedia article showing his notability. You have been warned about this before, so you should know this already. Meters (talk) 23:47, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion about Together California

Hello, Twillisjr

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Significa liberdade and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I've asked for a discussion about the redirect Together California, created by you. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 28 § Together California.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Significa liberdade}}. And don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 04:24, 28 September 2024 (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) 00:24, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of content

Hello @Twillisjr:, I wanted to give you a quick heads up that I removed the Lamplighter text from the Internal Affairs article along with a bit more reasoning of why.

Since Wikipedia is WP:NOTDICTIONARY, terms/words need to be able to be sourced to reliable secondary sources showing their use in that particular context. The two included references for the Lamplighter text were a primary source (the Lamplighter Projects organization page), and a secondary source pointing to the Lamplighter Project. It may be worth looking at WP:NOTNEO for a more specific explanation of the need for secondary sources for words. Also worth noting, text should generally not be interested into the lede paragraph of an article since the lede summarizes the body.

Before removing the text, I attempted to find better sourcing to replace the two references but was unable to find any secondary sources that used that specific term. If you can find reliable sources which state something similar to "Police whistleblowers, commonly known as lamplighters" then that would be a sufficient secondary source for the term. I wouldn't necessarily put it into the IA article though, maybe an article on police corruption?

Awshort (talk) 21:21, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Twillisjr: Please do not add material to the lede of pages that is not in the body.

Please find secondary sources that support your statement. Serpico refers to himself by that, as stated by your reference and 'Whistleblower' is not my favourite term. It has a negative connotation. I try to refer to us as lamp-lighters. which he stated here. However, that is one person who refers to himself as that and likes the term, and is not it being used by secondary sources to refer to them as that where WP:NOTNEO would suggest not including it.

This also doesn't fit in with the Internal Affairs article overall, as opposed to an article like whistleblowers or similar where it is not a trivial mention of something unrelated to the broader topic, and only with proper secondary sourcing.

Awshort (talk) 22:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder of MOS:Link

Hello Twillisjr. I hope you are having a good day! Just a reminder about your recent edit of Doug Collins, try not to use in line linking for generic terms (MOS:LINK) That is why I removed the link of "being cut" to the article of termination of employment. AsaQuathern (talk) 02:01, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of New Angouleme (disambiguation)

The article New Angouleme (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Disambiguation page not required (WP:ONEOTHER). Primary topic redirect points to an article with a hatnote to the only other use.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:59, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proprietary

I've noticed you've been adding the qualifier "proprietary" to the leads of various articles on online services. Is there a particular reason for this? Is there consensus for such a statement? ViperSnake151 Talk 00:29, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The content_license section of infoboxes for websites and software can and should be used to indicate whether or not the item is open source or proprietary at the very least. Twillisjr (talk) 01:56, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus for these changes. In many cases, they didn't make much sense. I reverted them. — Chrisahn (talk) 18:20, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting or Removing the correct type of License from software pages (websites are software) is not helping anyone. Your efforts are fruitless and shameful. What you have done is not educating Wikipedia users, rather, it is leaving a space bare from which they could have learned more. Twillisjr (talk) 18:43, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

original research

I had to significantly reword your contribution to Rick_Allen_(politician)#Marijuana to avoid blatant wp:or. Please take care to stick to the sources. Thank you. Biosthmors (talk) 14:59, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The NORML source shows a list of medical marijuana bills Rick Allen voted against. Please feel free to include them. Twillisjr (talk) 16:11, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That would be wp:undue weight, in my opinion. Biosthmors (talk) 17:43, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you change your mind, some *.gov sources exist. Twillisjr (talk) 17:45, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop including OR and synthesis rregarding people's religious denominations and views on cannabis. It's inappropriate and a BLP violation unless it's included in a secondary source that discusses the relevance of both issues. Many people have different views on social issues to the official line of their church; unless a secondary source mentions the relevance of one to another we should not be doing this. GnocchiFan (talk) 16:48, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, you may re-add the end portion of the sentence indicating the individual is against medical marijuana specifically. Twillisjr (talk) 18:20, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't addressed the main concern I raised here (and on my talk page): what about edits like this, this, this, and many others, which tie an individual's view on cannabis to their religion using synthesis and original research. As per the above, Biosthmors warned you against doing this previously, yet you have continued. Ser! also called you out for this on my talk page. GnocchiFan (talk) 20:55, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m still waiting to see a single politician’s page with the following format:

Marijuana

(Name of Politician)’s votes on marijuana and medical marijuana:

1. Bill - Vote - .gov citation
2.
3.
etc Twillisjr (talk) 21:10, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And you will continue to wait, beacause that is not how Wikipedia works. I've already conceded that if you really want to add information from NORML back into the articles, you may, but I still think it's undue. You still haven't addressed the OR and synthesis issues yet. GnocchiFan (talk) 21:27, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Curly quotes

Please read MOS:CURLY. Additions to the encyclopedia should never employ them - not even in references. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 19:34, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Motorola Solutions

You're using a primary source document - a proposal/quote - for a purchase of Spillman's software by a police department. That's not an adequate source - the claims for what the software does need to be referenced independently of that primary document. Spillman Technologies has (had) a vested interest in making a sale; the proposal is effectively an advertisement. You'll also note that the article has a lengthy, extensive 'History' section, where numerous acquisitions are detailed. You've added Spillman as a subsidiary to the infobox. But there's no mention in the 'history', where it should be.

The products listed in the 'Products' section of the article are largely generalized, and the assumed features of Spillman's product is covered by generic "Command Center products include public safety software focused on community engagement [...]". It falls into the realm of WP:UNDUE to make special mention of their product, and particularly calling out a specific subset of the capabilities - it would be better incorporated into a new entry in the 'History' section, rather than the 'Products' section. Obviously the proposal/quote should not be used as a source; instead use the press-release (that you added to the infobox) as your source and reference for the content of that entry. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 23:57, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]