This is an archive of former discussions. Please do not edit it. If you wish to revitalize an old topic, bring it up on the active talk page.
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!
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.
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. TwoHorned14:32, 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.Hkelkar15:24, 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.Hkelkar12:46, 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. TwoHorned17:52, 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 ? 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. TwoHorned18:33, 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.Hkelkar20:00, 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. TwoHorned20:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.
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).
Dear Administrator. I am obliged to react stongly to the blocking order launched against me by user Hkelkar. Here are the reasons: 1) All my Rvs were completely justified in the edit summary, as can be seen in the history section of Wikipedia article Koenraad elst (see [5]). 2- I did not change my identity to anonymous to cheat with the Wikipedia 3RV rule: the reason is that I just let my computer running many hours without logout, and there was a connexion time out; so when I edited the page, I was put as an anonymous user without realizing it. 3- User Hkelkar has never justified his reverts, as opposed to me. Thank you very much for your consideration. TwoHorned.
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.
Such comments [11] 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 [12]) Please read WP:BLP and related pages. --Bondego11:05, 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. TwoHorned11:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.
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).
48 h block seems a little bit severe to me. If you refer to the edit summaries related to this block, you will notice that the time discrepancy between edits make them not of the war-edit type. Moreover, these edits refer properly to the discussion page: [17], [18], [19]. Moreover, I'm afraid this block refers globally to unrelated topics. Please watch such blocking requests by user Hkelkar. He makes plenty of them which should level your attention on their good-faith. However, I sincerely apologize if my edits appear to have violated the rules, and I promise to watch that carefully in the future. TwoHorned 11:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Your edits not only appear to violate the rules, they DO violate the rules. C'mon, seriously; "not of the war-edit type"?? Truth is you pretty much violated 3RR twice since your last block. Perhaps this block will make it easier for you to remember the rule next time. - Glen14:29, 20 October 2006 (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.
