User talk:Xed: Difference between revisions

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

I removed that article from my site some time ago and I don't think I any longer have a copy of it. Adam 12:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The wording of the caption is "I have left this text as I posted it at the start of the war, so that my comments and predictions can be judged in the light of what actually happened." This would indicate you would have kept a copy. Perhaps you can post it here. - Xed 12:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd keep myself far from Arbcom cases and snowy things alike if I were you. It's likely to bring nothing else than wikistress. — mark ✎ 06:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. - Xed 13:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Election. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Election/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Election/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 02:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

clutter? - Xed 05:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just had to drop a note to say that I laughed out loud at the incongruity of Tony's message just after Mark's above. One might begin thinking about nefarious plots if they saw enough coincidences like this. Anyway, I hope you are doing well. - BanyanTree 21:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the procrustean world of Wikipedia. Keep up the good work. - Xed 20:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Xed, I just thought I'd remind you that you are in danger of violating the 3RR please do not revert again to avoid a block.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 13:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's truth and there's 3RR. - Xed 13:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And then there's repeatedly readding irrelavent information. I've reported you for the 3RR violation.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How brave.- Xed 10:22, 20 May 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.

The duration of the block is 48 hours. William M. Connolley 11:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strangely, my version hasn't been reverted for days. What does that suggest? It seems my additions weren't the issue. - Xed 16:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It means that I didn't want to violate the 3RR myself.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding edits such as this: 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 admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. --InShaneee 20:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More of an observation than a personal attack. - Xed 21:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, right.--Jimbo Wales 22:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The facts speak for themselves. Jimbo hangs around with someone who views arabs as, and I quote, "ragheads, camel jockeys, and jihad monkeys". He then goes out of his way to make their articles more sympathetic, after they have complained about the article. It's not uncivil to point this out. Rather, it is a service to Wikipedia. - Xed 22:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Hangs around with?" False. "Make their articles more sympathetic?" False. Associating Ann Coulter with Scaife is not negative for her, it is negative for him. Please.--Jimbo Wales 04:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"I met Anne Coulter recently and she brought this tidbit up to me as an example of a flaw in the Wikipedia biography of her, and I have to say that I agree with her criticism on this point." Your words, Wales. - Xed 09:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, if someone walks to up me and says that they would like to talk about their bio in Wikipedia, and I do so, that hardly amounts to "hanging around". And saying that she was right about her criticism is in now way about making the article more sympathetic to her. The specific factual issue at hand (about the details of a funding source of a college newspaper) seems to me to be neither sympathetic nor unsympathetic to her. The other edit I made was an unsourced reference to what her official birth certificate supposedly says. Is that sympathetic to her?

Perhaps you would be much happier if Wikipedia consisted of biased hatchet jobs on people you don't like, but that isn't the way it works. Even Ann Coulter, as much as you despise her, will have a factual and neutral article. --Jimbo Wales 20:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Come on Wales. Get a grip. Ditch the strawmen. Take criticism seriously for a change. Even if it's not from Coulter. - Xed 23:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xed, I would encourage you not to remark on the editor (Jimbo, in this instance) themself. Saying he lacks integrity (which you've said multiple times now) is a personal attack. If you have a problem with the content of one of his edits, please be specific and state that. It is fine if you disagree with someone, as we all should disagree with people sometime (we're not sheep, we have our own opinions on matters), just don't make it a personal dispute. Keep the discussion limited to the article's content. Do not comment on the editor themself. Thanks. --You Know Who ^{(Dark Mark)} 13:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My views on his integrity were formed in another matter. A behind-the-scenes thing. - Xed 14:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That may be true, but please do not bring it to Wikipedia. If you don't like the guy behind the scenes, comment on him behind the scenes too. Personal attacks harm the community, not just those being attacked. Thanks, Xed. --You Know Who ^{(Dark Mark)} 14:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this edit:

This is your last warning. If you continue to make personal attacks, you may be blocked for disruption. --InShaneee 18:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]