User talk:Xed/Archive7

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

WP:3RR reminder

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may 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. Jkelly 17:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you meant by "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. 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. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 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 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. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Unblock request

Hi. In regards to your unblock request, I wouldn't feel comfortable doing it until I had gone through your whole ArbCom case and then discussed the matter with the blocking admin (User:SlimVirgin, judging from the above). It would be significantly more efficient, I think, for you to take the matter up with the blocking admin directly. Further, to be entirely honest, I'm not sure from my (a little strange) interaction with you today that you could convince me that you wouldn't go straight back to edit-warring. You shouldn't put too much weight on that last point, however; I always refer unblock requests to the blocking admin. Jkelly 19:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Block extended

Xed, for many instances of personal attacks and incivility like these [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] in the last few days, I'm extending your block to a week as a violation of your arbcom-imposed parole. This is your third such block. Please do not make personal attacks. In fact, do not even skirt the boundaries of incivility. Dmcdevit·t 05:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Temporary Talk

(moved from User page)

There is no edit tab on your talk page, so I am leaving this msg for you here. Please see Talk:Alan Dershowitz. With certain caveats, I support your recent edits there. Merecat 21:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Why is Xed's talk page protected? -- Danny Yee 08:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

(This should be on the talk page, but that's protected.) In my opinion, phrases like "marshmallow spines" and "still crap" are a long way from being uncivil. That's the kind of language I might use myself without thinking twice about it. It's certainly NOT grounds for a week long ban. Is there one set of standards for Xed and another for everyone else? -- Danny Yee 08:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

For the record, User:Dmcdevit blocked me for a week, saying that I violated my "arbcom-imposed parole". In fact. there was no "arbcom-imposed parole". They only thing he could have meant expired in early March. Realising his mistake, a very quick vote took place, which imposed a new indefinite parole. In other words, the outcome of the arbitration case was changed retroactively in order to cover up a mistake. Some people have different standards of integrity I guess. All this for saying the word "crap" apparently. A search shows hundreds of other users need to be banned for this heinous crime.... -Xed 11:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Tit for tat: African countries and cities

I'll do one hour on one of the place starting with N in this category - Category:Cities_in_Ghana, if you do an hour on one of the places starting with W on the list. For me to finish by 4th May and you to finish by 10th May. Deal? - Xed 12:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Sure, it's a deal. I just finished an hour or so in Winneba. It's not a great deal larger than before, but I tend to spend a lot of time trying to find some vaguely-reliable sources off the Web. — Matt Crypto 14:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Great, I'll get started soon. - Xed 14:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

You might like this resource. Cheers, — mark ✎ 17:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Looks like my date may slip. - Xed 17:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Truthiness

You've been temporarily blocked from editing for violation of your personal-attack parole. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, can you give pointers to his parole violations? I just went through the last five days of Xed's contributions and can't find anything that looks like a personal attack. (I know more about Ghana than I did before!) -- Danny Yee 07:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Danny, in this post, he supports attacks made by banned User:Zephram Stark. As he's on parole, he's expected to avoid posting negative comments about contributors and stick to commenting on content. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, ok. I'd assumed a personal attack would be an attack rather than general negativity (and not support for someone unless it was endorsement of an attack) and directed at a person rather than a general comment on a thread. (And I skipped over every "truthiness" thread in the blogosphere, so I wouldn't use the term msyelf, but detecting sock puppets purely by linguistic analysis does seem likely to be a bit hit-and-miss, and not easily replicable/verifiable.) -- Danny Yee 23:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgins block was for me saying "It's Truthiness that counts". It has been overridden by the Leader. - Xed 17:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

That's good, I can't debate animism with you if you are banned! -- Danny Yee 23:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

If you continue to troll on Talk:Truthiness you may earn yourself another block for disruption. --pgk^(talk) 19:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not trolling, it's important information for editors. - Xed 20:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

It's trolling plain an simple --pgk^(talk) 20:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

By what definition? Is it false? - Xed 20:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Please explain your revert

What you added has nothing to do with the article subject. Ihas to do with racist attitude in the Jerusalem municipality. Zeq 14:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Since it's a memorial plaque to the victims, it's relevant. Feel free to add info about racist attitudes to the Jerusalem article. - Xed 14:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)