User talk:TwoHorned

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Please click here to leave me a new message.


Archive
Archive1

Welcome!

Hello, TwoHorned, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

Cheers, TewfikTalk 22:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Bizarre allegations

Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by administrators or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you.

Regarding this diff summary of yours:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AKoenraad_Elst&diff=81201566&oldid=81199663

Hkelkar 13:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I think now it is time to end this little joke. YOU made personnal attacks by accusing me of unsubstantied things. BTW, I'm still waiting your quotations. TwoHorned 14:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Show me which of my statements were "personal attacks". All my comments were on content, not contributor. Per the rule of WP:NPA that is not a personal attack. You explicitly called me a "bozo". That's an attack against me. You persisted even after I warned you. I give you one chance to apologize before I report you.Hkelkar 15:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Here is your personnal attack, as it appeared in [1]:
"By mentioning "neoconservative", his political leanings, instead of the details of his qualifications, you are making a false characterization of Pipes. His political beliefs are separate from his scholastic abilities.If you continue to violate WP:BLP in this manner and make the "neocon" anti-semitic canard (you actually mean "Jew", right?) against Pipes then it is grounds for reporting in BLP noticebaard.Hkelkar 12:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)"
-1 This attack is false, not based on any content (you still haven't substantiated this stupid and pathetic accusation).
-2 This attack is pure forgery, total invention and not based on any content : it is an extremely grave accusation, unjustified. Saying that Pipes is a neoconservative first instead of a scholar is not quite a proof of antisemistism, and Wikipedia introduces Pipes exactly like that.
-3 Your pityfull "warning" is not very impressive: not only you won't get any excuse from me, but I'm still waiting the quotations I asked. Given the gravity of your accusation, you'd be better of answering, believe me. TwoHorned 17:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Suggesting an anti-semitic bias on your part is not a personal attack. I did not call you an "anti-semite".A person can have an unconscious anti-semitic bias and not be an anti-semite. An anti-semite is a person who has a conscious bias against Jews.It is posible for a non-bigot to have a bigoted bias through media exposure, propaganda exposure (there is a LOT of anti-semitic propaganda on the internet, launched by Neo-Nazis, Palestinians,other Muslims, leftist liberals ie New anti-Semitism etc.) and cultural connections. I did not make a disparaging statement against you. You, however, addressed me in the pejorative, a clear personal attack. You continue to be incivil in your posts. If you persist, I will take this to ANB.
What quotations are you talking about exactly? Please elaborate.Hkelkar 18:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
What quotations ? Refer to my claim on [2]. Suggesting anti-semitic bias IS personal attack, referred to under the term Accusatory comments in the Wikipedia definition of personal attacks. Your nauseating explanations using subconsciousness have no value: you can accuse everyone of everything without any proof with such concepts. I repeat: you'd be better of answering my demand in [3], since what you have done against me is not just personal attack, but something that can go much farther. TwoHorned 18:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
You made the statement "neocon" in the header of the article talk page Talk:Koenraad Elst#Controversies about Elst's links with the neocons and the extreme right, as well as several times in the conversation. The term "neocon" is a pejorative for neoconservatives generally regarded as an insult and with connotations of an ethnic slur as, historically, anti-semites have used it to make accusations of neoconservatism being "dominated by Jews", "controlled by Jews" or "espousing dual loyalty to Israel" etc. They try to justify this by using the fact that the founder of the neoconservative political institution, Irving Kristol, was Jewish and neoconservatism is a foreign policy matter in the USA.That, together with the traditional anti-semitic canard of "dual loyalty" leads the accusations to an appearence of credibility in left wing circles.Bear in mind that even critics of neoconservatism on wikipedia do not use this pejorative to refer to them, Thus, I was concerned as to whether your obvious opposition to neoconservatism and you (falsely) associating it with the far right was the result of a mainstream political opinion bolstered by falsifications and rhetoric (which is a poor use of wikipedia discussion pages, but not against wikipedia policy) or a hidden anti-semitic bias (which would be a very serious matter). There are ways to establish the background behind your opinions and, if it turns out that you do not, point of fact, have an anti-semitic bias but are merely ignorant of the truth concerning the neoconservative movement, then I will apologize to you.Hkelkar 20:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
This is becoming more and more hilarious. The term "neocon" is just an abbreviation of "neoconservative", used in a pejorative way, that may be, but in a usual political sense only, and it is not intended to be particularly anti-semitic. If you try to tag everyone on earth that used the term "neocon" as an antisemite, then, well, you've got quite some work to do. By the way, just have a look on the Wikipedia page for Neoconservatism and just count how many times the word neocon is used. It is, on the contrary, your obsession to insult people that do not share your views as "anti-semitic" that is quite revealing about your psychological bias. Everywhere in the mainstream media, and also in Wikipedia discussions, the term neocon is used by people that oppose to the neoconservative movement. And these people, you know, may be perfectly aware and as learned as you pretend to be about the political and ideological warfare concerning the neoconservatives. I don't give a damn about your apologies and you will never get any apology from me. But again, I am still waiting your precise quotations from me proving that I said something about the neocons and the jews. Come' on, I'm still waiting, but I will not wait for too long. TwoHorned 20:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another try

This diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Koenraad_Elst&oldid=81575971#About_some_accusations_levelled_in_this_discussion_page HAs the tone of a personal attack. Please reword it better or I will report you. Plus, I will file an RFCU against you as I suspect that you are a sock of indefbanned User:Robert Lindsay Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by administrators or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. Hkelkar 12:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Defamation on Koenraad Elst; really ?

Such comments [4] on talkpages of biographies of living people are not acceptable. Also, please remember that Zydenbos's personal Angelfire homepage is not a reliable source that satisfies the rigourous criteria of WP:BLP. There are many such cases when one searches the Koenraad Elst history (like this [5]) Please read WP:BLP and related pages. --Bondego 11:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Elst's interest into neo-paganism is written in the article page itself since long time ago, and does not seem to have triggered any particular reaction. Moreover, Elst's interest into neo-paganism is written by Elst himself in his short bio on VOI. However, I consent to remove the word "right-wing", which could leave to misunderstandings. But I don't think I've made a defamation here. And the discussion related to Angelfire is unrelated to this. It is still in discussion. TwoHorned 11:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I've done the modification: I removed the word "right-wing". TwoHorned 11:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I've also added the following ref: see [6] which justifies my first edit. But the word right-wing is removed. TwoHorned 12:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Warning

This is in regards to you recent edit to Hkelkar's talk page. If you have a problem with Hkelkar - seek mediation, file an RfC, or go to ArbCom. But do not fight on talk pages. I consider using edit summaries like "adherence... o surely" to be disruptive. Consider this as a warning. - Aksi_great (talk) 13:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Good. From now on think twice before clicking every time on the save button. Our goal is to build an encyclopedia, not to fight. Cheers. - Aksi_great (talk) 13:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppetry

Hello TwoHorned. Thanks for your interest. I welcome you to email me with your evidence. I will be presenting the evidence as per the suggestions of Daniel Bryant. I agree with him that the evidence should not be staggered and we should have a solid case right from the beginning. BhaiSaab talk 11:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Good idea. The talk page grew into a forum for sarcasm and nonsense anyways.Bakaman Bakatalk 14:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I made those changes. Please do note that Angelfile doesnt meet WP:RS, but in the spirit of working together I placed the angelfire link in the references section, so its not in the main article. If what I gather from you is that you are against his views about Europe, then I really dont have much issue, because his views on europe are irrelevant to me.Bakaman Bakatalk 23:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration

Hello, you are involved in a request for arbitration. Please see this case. BhaiSaab talk 23:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey TwoHorned. I have noticed that you continue to update your post on the request for arbitration. I suggest you not worry about it yet, because it's only a request right now. Once the request gets accepted you can compile whatever you want into an evidence section that it will have. Thanks. BhaiSaab talk 20:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Elst

You have to write according to the references cited.-Bharatveer 04:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I removed the reference for two reasons: First, it doesn't meet WP:RS for WP:BLP at all. It is a forum post!! Secondly, I replaced it with a better reference for the Elst article, an article written by the person in question itself.
Please realize that forum posts and Zydenbos personal homepage do not meet WP:BLP. Thank you. --Bondego 16:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 12:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response

Excellent point! NinaEliza has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile at others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing! NinaElizatalk


Check out this page[[7]]. My day just gets better and better. NinaEliza 18:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar

This case is now closed and the results have been posted above.

For the Arbitration committee, Cowman109Talk 06:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: My question in the Admins' noticeboard

Allow me to expand and clarify my suggestion. Yes, rewrite the article in your userspace. Make of note of your rewrite on the article's talk page pointing to the page of your rewrite. Get the other's opinions on the finished product and then overwrite the existing article with your version. THEN, before nominating for Featured Article, place the article up for peer review. An article should really have at least one peer review before being nominated for FA. Then, base how you proceed on the advice from the peer review. Let me know if you have any other questions.↔NMajdan•talk 00:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Things to note

Hello,

I would like to completely overhaul, enhance, rewritte an existing article. As a result, when my work is done, I would like to propose the newly written page as an "article of quality" or something like that.

What is the regular procedure to do that ? I've already seen some templates on pages which are redefined and rewritten. My problem is that I would prefer an "agreement" from the previous authors of the page: I will not destroy their work, or I don't want to appear as doing so, but I would rather insert it into a much more general and profound setting.

Thanks,

TwoHorned 13:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

If you plan on completely rewriting an article, a good way to start is to begin writing the article on your own userspace. So, for instance, you could start writing the article at User:TwoHorned/Rewrite and then you can build it up there and take your time without it interfering with the existing article. When you believe your rewrite is finished you can make other editors aware that you have rewritten the article and you could allow them to read it before you copy it over the existing article. As far as "article of quality" goes, we have two things I believe you are referring to. There is Good Article and Featured Article with the latter being the more stringent one. Featured articles are profiled on the main page. I hope this helps. If you have any future questions, rather than posting them here, try the help desk.↔NMajdan•talk 14:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. Take it to the article's discussion page, link to where you're working, and encourage them to help with the rewrite. Just make it known, and remember that you don't own the new and improved article. I look forward to reading it. Teke(talk) 15:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hkelkar socks

Hi. Thanks for the note on my talk page. Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Hkelkar. Please inform me if you find suspect any other account of being Hkelkar. - Aksi_great (talk) 06:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Bnei Menashe wrt II relations

That section is probably longer than the actual Bnei Menashe page. It can be trimmed quite a bit.Bakaman 17:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding edits to Robert J. Zydenbos

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, TwoHorned! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule \bangelfire\.com\/, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links policy for more information. If the link was to an image, please read Wikipedia's image tutorial on how to use a more appropriate method to insert the image into an article. If your link was intended to promote a site you own, are affiliated with, or will make money from inclusion in Wikipedia, please note that inserting spam into Wikipedia is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 09:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Please stop adding inappropriate links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming and will be removed. Thanks. Shadowbot 09:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/w/o/User_talk%7ETwoHorned_d260.html"