User talk:Xed: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:26, 20 April 2006

Talk archives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

Hi

Xed, I suggest to give matters some rest while the arbitrators at last seem to have noticed the many open questions in your case, and while a few of them are reconsidering their voting. We know both that it has taken waaaaay to much time for them to get to these questions, but bickering about minor things isn't going to help them having a fresh look at the case. Cheers, — mark ✎ 08:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unsolicited Advice

I don't see yourself doing yourself a service at all over on the Clerks page. Just a heads up from a totally disinterested party. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is unsolicited too. But, I have spent some time on this. .... Knock it off, man. I understand why you are frustrated. But, you've got to keep your eye on the ball. Is quarelling with Kelly likely in any way to accomplish anything you are interested in, besides the satisfaction of lashing back? No. You've simply got to pick your fights better than that. Plus, your complaint doesn't even really hold up. If the RFAr had been closed as soon as the votes were reached, you'd already be banned for a year.

Look, my perception is that Snowspinner didn't like the content of your edits. What he do to shut you up? He ran off to arbcom complaining you are quarrelsome. Worked pretty well so far didn't it? Almost worked permanently. Keep being quarrelsome, and he wins; you handed it to him; you beat yourself. Simple as that. So, stop and think about what you are trying to accomplish whenever you pick a fight with someone. I'll not lecture you again; I'm just hoping you'll take some good advice. You will accomplish 100 times more by making people like you than by quarreling. Read How to Win Friends and Influence People. It's corny, but it's also a great book. It tells you how to win, by using basic psychology. Right now, you are using basic psychology to lose. If I knew your post address, I'd buy it for you myself. Not because I'm talking down to you, but because I think you can accomplish great things if you quit being your own worst enemy. Derex 20:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, the best way to get egg in your critics' faces would have been to have been really really careful for a month or two after the arbcom was invoked. Then they'd have really looked like a bunch of turkeys. -- Danny Yee 01:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFAR on Xed

The Wikipedia:Request for Arbitration against User:Xed is closed [1]. Xed, who remains on personal attack parole, is reminded to avoid personal attacks even in the face of extreme provocation. Xed is warned regarding use of a source such as this one which does not support the information it is cited in support of. Viriditas is commended for continuing to work with the article substantially improving it while maintaining a courteous attitude toward the difficult user Xed.

For the Arbitration Committee, --Ryan Delaney ^talk 17:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charities accused rename

You may be interested in the proposed rename of Charities accused of ties to terrorism. I think your input could help. -- GRuban 17:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, based upon your comments in this section it would appear that you would be very interested in the above debate. Netscott 15:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 24: / Line 24: @@
 You may be interested in the proposed rename of [[Talk:Charities accused of ties to terrorism|Charities accused of ties to terrorism]]. I think your input could help. -- [[User:GRuban|GRuban]] 17:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 :Indeed, based upon your comments in [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias#Islamic-terrorism_propoganda|this section]] it would appear that you would be <i>very</i> interested in the above debate. [[User:Netscott|Netscott]] 15:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
-== [[WP:3RR]] reminder ==
-Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]] from editing Wikipedia under the [[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|three-revert rule]], which states that nobody may [[Wikipedia:revert|revert]] an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the ''effect'' of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.<!-- Template:3RR --> [[User:Jkelly|Jkelly]] 17:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
-:I'm not sure what you meant by "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJkelly&diff=49309992&oldid=48884349 threatening]".  I just noted that you seem to be edit-warring on [[Alan Dershowitz]], which is on my watchlist.  I left the boilerplate above as a reminder not to revert war.  [[User:Jkelly|Jkelly]] 17:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
-==Disruption==
-If you continue to edit disruptively, you may be blocked for that, if not for 3RR, and without further warning. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup><font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font></sup> 17:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
-:I've blocked you for violating 3RR at [[Alan Dershowitz]]. For the benefit of other admins, the first revert of Xed's was a revert, not an edit, and reverted to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alan_Dershowitz&diff=30257445&oldid=30048352 this deleted paragraph]. This article has been the subject of a complaint to the Foundation, and Xed is aware of that, so it was particularly disruptive of him to restore the deleted content. Xed, if you delete the warnings and this notice again, I'll protect the page. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup><font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font></sup> 17:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)