Talk archives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
(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)
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)
You might like this resource. Cheers, — mark ✎ 17:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
You've been temporarily blocked from editing for violation of your personal-attack parole. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:21, 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)
If you continue to troll on Talk:Truthiness you may earn yourself another block for disruption. -- pgk( talk) 19:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
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)
Talk archives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
(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)
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)
You might like this resource. Cheers, — mark ✎ 17:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
You've been temporarily blocked from editing for violation of your personal-attack parole. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:21, 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)
If you continue to troll on Talk:Truthiness you may earn yourself another block for disruption. -- pgk( talk) 19:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
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)