User talk:TwoHorned

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)"[reply]
-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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
I've done the modification: I removed the word "right-wing". TwoHorned 11:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks

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

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)[reply]

Arbitration

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

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)[reply]

Elst

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Thanks for uploading Image:Rene_guenon.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TwoHorned de wp:fr ?

Bonjour,
Etes vous le contributeur fr:user:TwoHorned également ?
Vous avez repris l'article de Guénon mais vous n'y travaillez pas et vous travaillez ici sur un article sur les relations indo-israéliennes, ce que ne fait pas votre "équivalent" francophone.
Cordialement,
Alithien 20:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Et bien oui. Aucun doute. Vous avez mis en-1 sur wp:fr... ;-)
Bonne continuation, fr:user:ceedjee —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alithien (talk • contribs) 20:58, August 22, 2007 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ceedjee

You recently compiled and listed a case at request for checkuser. A checkuser or clerk has asked that you list the code letter which matches with the violations of policy, which is listed at the top of the request for checkuser page. This has been implemented to reduce difficulties for checkusers, and is essential for your case to be processed in a timely manner. A link to your recently-created case which has this information missing is here. Thanks for your co-operation. Anthøny 11:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC), checkuser clerk.[reply]

Khwaja Sahab

Sorry, I am not ignoring you. I will answer this in detail when I can. Meanwhile, my source is Dr Zahurul Sharib (see www.zahuri.org) - I'll try to discover which book this was in. Gwaka Lumpa (talk) 10:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Commons

Thank you for uploading images/media to Wikipedia! There is, however, another Wikimedia Foundation project called Wikimedia Commons, a central media repository for all free media. In the future, please consider creating an account and uploading your media there instead. That way, all of the other language Wikipedias can use them too, as well as our many sister projects. This will also allow our visitors to search for, view and use our media in one central location. If you wish to move previous uploads to Commons, see Wikipedia:Moving images to the Commons (you may view images you have previously uploaded by going to your user contributions on the left and choosing the 'image' namespace from the drop down box). Please note that non-free content, such as images claimed as fair use, cannot be uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons. Help us spread the word about Commons by informing other users, and please continue uploading!

--OsamaK 06:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Small error

I believe there is a small material error in footnotes 61 and 62 of the "René Guénon" article. Both footnotes say "ibid.", and it looks like they refer to the previously quoted book, "The esoterism of Dante". I think, instead, they should refer to "Perspectives on initiation, chap. XXXIX: Greater mysteries and lesser mysteries". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.86.178 (talk) 07:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your note

Twohorned, I will work with you on one condition. You read the article carefully, all of it, top to bottom, and try to appreciate the amount of careful work, thought, balance, and sourcing that went into it. It isn't perfect, and it won't please everyone. It won't please anyone with strong views on the issue, because it tries to steer a middle course. But given how contentious the issue is, this is about the most neutral, and certainly the most comprehensive, account of it that exists anywhere, online or off. If you come to the article with clean hands, you're familiar with the material, and you're very serious about neutrality and producing high-quality work, then yes, I will work with you. :) SlimVirgin TALK contribs 18:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sounds good, thank you. :) SlimVirgin TALK contribs 21:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tawhid.jpg

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:Tawhid.jpg has been listed for speedy deletion because you selected a copyright license type implying some type of restricted use, such as for non-commercial use only, or for educational use only or for use on Wikipedia by permission. While it might seem reasonable to assume that such files can be freely used on Wikipedia, this is in fact not the case[8][9]. Please do not upload any more files with these restrictions on them, because images on Wikipedia need to be compatible with the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike or another free license, which allow anyone to use it for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial. See our non-free content guidelines for more more information.

If you created this media file and want to use it on Wikipedia, you may re-upload it (or amend the image description if it has not yet been deleted) and use the license {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license, or use {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. Note, if you did create this file, you may want to upload it to Wikimedia Commons, which will allow the image to be accessed by all Wikimedia Foundation projects (which include the various localized versions of Wikipedia)

If you did not create this media file, please understand that the vast majority of images found on the internet are not appropriate for Wikipedia. Most content on the internet is copyrighted and the creator of the image has exclusive rights to use it. Wikipedia respects the copyrights of others - do not upload images that violate others' copyrights. In certain limited cases, we may be able to use an image under a claim of fair use - if you are certain that fair use would apply here, you may choose one of the fair use tags from this list. If no fair use rationale applies, you may want to contact the copyright holder and request that they make the media available under a free license.

If you have any questions please ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:39, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


For this logo, if there was an article on the organisation we could use this under fair use. However to illustrate the idea of an author, it is stretching fair use too much. Can you get this released under a free license? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:39, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Go to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Tawhid.jpg&action=edit and change the bit under the licensing header to say your new license, removing the old text which is left from before. There will also need to be proof that the use is free, so use WP:PERMIT to forward your email. If it only gives permission for Wikipedia use this is not free enough for here though.


Thank you for uploading File:Tawhid.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. FASTILYsock(TALK) 02:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TwoHorned. You have new messages at Fastily's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-FASTILY (TALK) 19:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop replacing text I removed for copyright violation. Dougweller (talk) 20:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hemant Karkare

Hello can you help me with the clean up the page Hemant Karkare, the topic "Karkare led to the trap" is being constantly deleted for reasons you can check in the history. I noticed you had put it back there sometime back, but its been reverted again. I tried talking, but no use! I want this topic to be properly represented but making any changes is impossible because as soon as put it back someone undo's my changes! I hope this request is not awkward, am a bit new to wikipedia... ThanksSuchiBhasin (talk) 14:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion going on about merging the article Saffron terror with Hindu Nationalism- would appreciate your point of view. Cool hindu (talk) 11:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your help, but now WP admin RegentsPark has locked the page and removed the section. He doesn't like the flow of the piece and the fact that the controversies section is way too long. I don't think removing the section and blocking it from editing is fair! --SuchiBhasin (talk) 06:37, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, TwoHorned. You have new messages at Jayjg's talk page.
Message added 03:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

2008 Mumbai attacks

Hi, it seems that you are currently engaged in an edit war in this article. Why don't you and the other involved parties discuss the changes in talk page of the article and reach a consensus? Btw, you have also broken the 3 revert rule. Shovon (talk) 12:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

signature woes

Per Wikipedia:Signatures#Customizing_your_signature, I want to point out that your sig makes me cross-eyed. too much use of shadow, and/or the shadowing is too heavy with respect to the link text. could I ask you to play with the CSS a bit to make it less painful? I'm good with CSS and happy to help if you like. --Ludwigs2 18:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.s., I'm talking about the sig that appears in this thread, not the simpler one that seems to appear here - different accounts, maybe? --Ludwigs2 18:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, TwoHorned. You have new messages at Arjun024's talk page.
Message added 10:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Arjuncodename024 10:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Mumbai attacks

I have just warned the IP editor that I am extremely close to blocking them for edit warring and disruptive editing. I note, however, that you have also resumed reverting instead of discussing. Stop now. If you continue I will block you, rather than protect the article again. TFOWR 09:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indo–Israeli relations

Hi TwoHorned! Please stop edit-warring on the article Indo-Israeli relations. If you have a problem with some of the content on the page, please use the relevant talk page. Thanks, Ynhockey (Talk) 10:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes please. we can thrash this out in the talk page. Then, if the IPs continue to revert, we can semi protect.--Sodabottle (talk) 14:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The IP has come to the talk page. Your views on why you want to blank are welcome there. All four of us (including the IP) participating there are for including the blanked sections in a summaraized form.--Sodabottle (talk) 14:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About the entry "Total variation"

Hi, I saw you corrected a few important typos in the entry "Total variation": I would like to thank you. It is common for me having not much time to review my edits, therefore the probability to disseminate them with typos is high. Daniele.tampieri (talk) 20:25, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, TwoHorned. You have new messages at WP:Editor Assistance/Requests.
Message added 21:16, 17 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Danger (talk) 21:16, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another message. I may have made an error in my answer. --Danger (talk) 21:54, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where to contest a labelled article

Hello,

I've found an article labelled with a star as a "good article" in which I read, to my opinion, many errors and innacuracies. I would like to contest the article's label and expose all what I see as the flaws of the article . Where is the correct place to do this ? I'm not sure the talk page is the correct place for contesting the label.

Thanks

- TwoHorned User_talk:TwoHorned 21:07, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just follow the instructions at good article reassessment. --Danger (talk) 21:16, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. - TwoHorned User_talk:TwoHorned 21:32, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reading your post again, if the symbol is a gold star, the correct place to go is featured article reassessment. Good articles are indicated with a green circle around a plus sign. (These are the two levels of audited content on Wikipedia and each have different standards.) --Danger (talk) 21:54, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rene Guenon.

Hi there,

I've added content to some sections of the Rene Guenon page. Perhaps you can give them an editing over?

Regards, William. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamBraddell (talk • contribs) 07:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

India-Israel relations

You are removing sourced material. Your claim that the sources are "not reliable" is your personal interpretation. Your edits include blanking large sections of the article and removing images. If you object to the sources, replace them with better ones, but wholesale removal of material because you don't like it, is problematic. If there is a problem with a specific sentence, tag it. Looking forward to constructive collaboration. Best, --Geewhiz (talk) 08:10, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Tawhid.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Tawhid.jpg, which you've sourced to INSUFFICIENT OTRS OVER 1 MONTH OLD. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:21, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad al-Durrah incident

Hello. Muhammad al-Durrah incident, like all articles related to the Arab–Israeli conflict broadly construed, is subject to a one revert restriction. Please see WP:ARBPIA#Further remedies for more information.

Your last edit to Muhammad al-Durrah incident appears to be your second revert today. Please consider self-reverting or you may be reported to WP:ANEW. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:36, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for self-reverting.
Your last edits made the paragraph better, but it still isn't clear what "it" is that the paragraph is about. It was initiated and supported by a few people in France, it became a multifaceted controversy, and it is described as a sophisticated machine and campaign. It may seem obvious to you what "it" is, but it's confusing to me and NickCT. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:04, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Thanks. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, TwoHorned. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 19:14, 15 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

{subst:proposed deletion notify|Mediapart|concern=no indication of notability - no references discussing the topic in depth}} 71.204.165.25 (talk) 19:30, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed addition

Hi! I'll get to work copyediting your proposed edition :) WhisperToMe (talk) 02:00, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free files in your user space

Hey there TwoHorned, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:TwoHorned/work under way 1.

  • See a log of files removed today here.
  • Shut off the bot here.
  • Report errors here.
  • If you have any questions, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:08, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

your recent edits on the bat ye'or page

if you remove the tag and sifaoui then bawer, manji has to go as well. these are non-experts and political commentaries. not very reliable nor neutral, especially bawer. in my opinion, the subject is controversial and the reception section should only include academic secondary sources.-- altetendekrabbe  06:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

griffith is back into the article which is good. however, there are other issues as well. bawer and manji, are non-experts and political partisans whose views about bat ye'or are clearly fringe. the same is true for gilbert who is a firm believer of bat ye'or's nonsense. the consensus of the academic community (and the wiki community for that matter), which is firmly against bat ye'or, is not represented at all. hence, neutral point of view is seriously violated.-- altetendekrabbe  20:02, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
i don't mind removing sifaoui. just take your points to the talk-page.-- altetendekrabbe  21:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Could you tell me when and where Mohamed Sifaoui "was a strong supporter of BY" ? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your most recent edit seems to be your 4th revert in the last 24 hours. Kindly undo it and save me the trouble of having to report you. Beat Up Little Seagull (talk) 18:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited René Guénon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Carl Kellner (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Denis Jeambar, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Samuel Huntington (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:19, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

June 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Koenraad Elst may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Some of his books or articles contain harsh criticisms of [[Islam]] as a whole (among others "''Wahi: the Supernatural Basis of Islam''", "''From Ayodhya to Nazareth''", an

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:52, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Hello, I'm APerson241. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Muhammad al-Durrah incident because it did not appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. APerson241 (talk!) 21:30, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notification

File:Yes
The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you continue to misconduct yourself on pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page. Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This is a non administrator notification, and will be logged as such on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.

--Calypsomusic (talk) 11:33, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to your question, the reason were your BLP violations on the Koenraad Elst article. --Calypsomusic (talk) 08:19, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Koenraad Elst may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Some of his books or articles contain harsh criticisms of [[Islam]] as a whole (among others "''Wahi: the Supernatural Basis of Islam''", "''From Ayodhya to Nazareth''", an

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:30, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BLP warning

Information icon Hello, I'm Calypsomusic. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living person, but that you didn’t support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. --Calypsomusic (talk) 08:18, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Signature

Hi TwoHorned. Could you please check your signature? Only time and date appear now, not your name and links. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:18, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your signature is now as follows: <span style="white-space:nowrap;"> - <font face="sans-serif">[[User:TwoHorned|TwoHorned]] <sub>[[User_talk:TwoHorned]]</sub></font></span>. Maybe the problem is in style="white-space:nowrap;"? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:55, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

Discretionary sanctions notification

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:59, 22 May 2014 (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) 13:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, TwoHorned. 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)[reply]

June 2017

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at René Guénon. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Bbb23 (talk) 15:10, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

TwoHorned (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hi. I admit to have another account by the name of Xinheart, the other ones proposed are not me (example: User:RougailSociss). Anyway it's sure I shoudn't have done it, but I think you should really check User:Dekacarandaebonelm with indefinitely banned User:Hkelkar and his numerous sockpuppets, in particular a recent one User:Calypsomusic. User:Dekacarandaebonelm appears on June, 20 and already knows all the knots and bolts of check-user. User:Dekacarandaebonelm engaged in retaliation because he/she was unhappy with my other account Xinheart's edits on Koenraad Elst, where User:Calypsomusic has edited. If you allow me to come back, I promiss never using sockpuppets again. - TwoHorned User_talk:TwoHorned 21:10, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Please, see WP:NOTTHEM and try again. Be aware that the WP:Checkuser tool conformed your account is connected to three others. You have to explain that connection. Also, you have to convince us that you understand what was wrong with your actions. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:57, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

TwoHorned (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

OK. Of all the user accounts mentioned in the page Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TwoHorned, only TwoHorned, Xinheart and Mindcontrol are mine. I didn't mention User:Mindcontrol in the first place because, if I'm right, I never used it on wp:en. For user:Xinheart, I remember having created it because I was tired of these empty discussions on article René Guénon TP. I know it's bad to do that, but I was really exhausted. Basically, I'm on Wikipedia to write about esotericism and the influence of some political undercurrents which, i believe, have their root outside the political realm, be it extreme right or left. These are complex notions i can't develop here, but that helps understand the connections between the topics I tackle with. What happened here is the following: User:Dekacarandaebonelm = (I'm pretty sure, User:Calypsomusic among many many many others, all are sprouts of old indef banned user Hkelkar) went mad when i decided to edit again, under the account Xinheart, the article Koenraad Elst to expose the well known and sourced right-wing connections of this author. User:Dekacarandaebonelm vandalized the article René Guénon in retaliation, and he/she did it by writing that Guénon is extreme-right. He/she knows this is my favourite topic, this is why he/she did it. It's as trivial as this. But I know I'm clearly wrong in this issue, I shouldn't have used sockpuppets. It didn't harm articles, BTW, only those that User:Dekacarandaebonelm = User:Calypsomusic = etc. etc. knows I'm working on. I'm pretty sure User:Dekacarandaebonelm is a sockpuppet of many others, you can check. But this is irrelevant. The main point here is that I fully recognize i did it badly. I really would want to keep on contributing on esoterism articles, without any sockpuppets this time, this is why I'm asking for your indulgence on this. I really promiss I'll never use sockpuppetry again (and, in fact, if you let me, I couldn't do it anymore, because my topic of contribution is too well defined). Thank you to have given me the opportunity to write René Guénon's article, btw. It almost reached quality standard, i almost completely wrote it. I can tell you that, as said by many, wp:en article on Guénon is the best of all wikis. So, if you pardon me, I will just keep on writing on these topics, without never, ever use sockpuppetry again. Thanks and best wishes. - TwoHorned User_talk:TwoHorned 19:32, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Too much of this request is based on the actions of others and not yourself; like previously said, look at WP:NOTTHEM. Plase make future requests that focus ONLY on your actions and not bringing in others. only (talk) 14:26, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Nomination of Metaphysical terms in the works of René Guénon for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Metaphysical terms in the works of René Guénon is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metaphysical terms in the works of René Guénon until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 12:36, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]