User talk:LifeEnemy

Welcome!

Hello,, 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 (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- GraemeL (talk) 17:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

I've noticed you.
Hi, do u wanna join my legion of Marudubshinki haters? I've noticed that you hate him too. He's banned my other accounts a number of times before for no reason. Once there are enough of us, we will try to get Maru off the admin board. Thanks, all the best. Thierryhenry1000 18:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

He's a douchebag, true, but I don't join hate groups. I'm too lazy to anyway.LifeEnemy 03:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Well Earned Recognition

 * Cool. Thanks. --LifeEnemy 05:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
Please be mindful of WP:3RR, which you have reached if not exceeded. Just a friendly reminder.--Mantanmoreland 19:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * LifeEnemy, I just thought I would mention something that Mantanmoreland did not; none of your revisions actually fall under the provisions of the three revert rule. Here is the specific part of the policy that  indicates that. Markovich292 20:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Pfft! What a douchebag [Mantanmoreland]. -LifeEnemy 21:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It was just a friendly reminder to abide by 3RR. Also I suggest that you clean up your language. I see you've used that same obscenity twice on your talk page. See WP:NPA.--Mantanmoreland 21:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You were the one who warned me against editing the page but conveniently forgot to mention that it fell under an exception. I find it pretty obvious it wasn't a "friendly" reminder, but a motivated move. Also, this is my talk page, and I will say what I want (within reason). I also find it offensive that you consider yourself morally superior to me. --LifeEnemy 21:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Just to let you know, you just made your fourth revert in 24 hours on MA, so please self-revert so that you are not in violation of 3RR. Thanks -- Avi 21:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * As was stated before, this falls under the exception. I'm afraid I will have to refuse. --LifeEnemy 21:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)



You must explain to me sometime these exciting exceptions that apparently permit you to ignore 3RR. So maany people would find them useful.

William M. Connolley 22:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Please read the link to the "exciting exception" above. The reversions by LifeEnemy fall under this provision and therefore this block is not acceptable under Wikipedia policy. Markovich292 23:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

It is not potentially libelous, as it has his anti-semitic tendencies, and his being called on it, have been in print many tens if not hundreds of times. -- Avi 23:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You can say "nope" all you want in the edit summary, but you can't deny that he made a "good-faith effort" "to remove unsourced or poorly sourced derogatory information about living persons." Why is it poorly sourced you probably now ask?  Because there are no sources that have facts to support the implied fact that LifeEnemy removed from the article. Markovich292 23:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not arguing the existence of good faith or not. Notice, I made a good faith effort to prevent him from violating by asking him to self-revert [[image:smile.gif]]. I also was not the one to block him, as I recused myself, being involved in the discussion. However, I do frown on calling people douchebags, regardless of whether the accused in question is correct (as Matanmoreland was shown to be in this case) or not. -- Avi 00:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Mantanmoreland may have gotten his way, but it doesn't make him (or you) correct. That was not even a direct attack at him. Besides, it's certainly not "friendly" to give a warning but not mention the exemption (which is supposed to apply here). --LifeEnemy 01:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Not if the exemption does not apply, which I believe it does not, so that was why I informed you of the possibility of self-reversion to protect your block. -- Avi 04:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you aware that there is a tag right at the top of the talk page that actually quotes the potentially libelous material exemption I was supposed to be covered under? You might want to take a look. --LifeEnemy 19:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, but read the entire warning: “Negative material that is unsourced or poorly sourced  must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous.” This is reliably and verifably sourced, and as such does not fall under the exemption. -- Avi 20:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The point is though, that it is poorly sourced. I (and apparently LifeEnemy) are pointing out that there may be sources with people calling him anti-semitic, but when it comes to material that satisfies WP:NPOV and WP:BLP, it is indeed to poorly sourced to support categorization. Markovich292 22:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yet it is still hotly debated. --LifeEnemy 22:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe that if you follow your collective argument, you will see that you are making the claim that while some call him an anti-semite that does not mean that he is an anti-semite, which, as your original synthesis of the data, is original research. We have reliable and verifiable sources that indisputably call him an anti-semite and his words anti-semitic, which means that this exception is inapplicable. -- Avi 00:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I hope you are just taking on the role of devil's advocate here. It is odd to me how a long-time wikipedia editor, and an admin no less, could actually try to claim original research in this situation.  It is naive for anyone to say that calling someone X means that they are X.  That is a truism and as such it passes WP:NOR. Markovich292 03:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I would really prefer that this argument cease on my talk page. It's inane and pointless to dispute this here. --LifeEnemy 05:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

As you wish. -- Avi 05:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * William M. Connolley, I respectfully request that you remove the block placed on me. I realize that it was unwise to engage in edit warring, whether I am under an exception or not. However, if you have not yet read the exemption, I would request that you please do so here. I argue that it is potentially libelous because the discussion is ongoing with many editors still arguing on both sides. Also, Categorization states that "Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category." As I said, I argue that it is neither self-evident nor uncontroversial. --LifeEnemy 01:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

When requesting an unblock, you should use the unblock template. As a matter of good faith I will set it up for you, and will obviously recuse myself from deciding one way or another, obviously, as we are in a content dispute, even though I believe that the exemption Markovich and you bring does not apply here. I will take the liberty, however, of leaving a comment in which I stste my opinion. Thanks. -- Avi 04:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention that I still think using terms such as douchebag in reference to other editors is uncalled for and unnecessary. -- Avi 04:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, true. I don't see a need to get all uptight about it though, it's not that big of a deal. --LifeEnemy 01:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree with you greatly, and I also question how well you know that rule. If any violation were punishable by blocking, that very page wouldn't be half taken up by the exceptions section, would it? Also, a first time 3RR block should actually never be 48 hours. "If you violate the three-revert rule, after your fourth revert in 24 hours, sysops may block you for up to 24 hours". I'm afraid you are just plain wrong. I would request that another admin (who actually reads the policy page) review this case, but it's not worth all the trouble. --LifeEnemy 01:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Note to reviewing admin: Please see above in that this material is felt by many other editors to not even be potentially libelous, as it is widespread in world media and accepted as true by various bodies including the US senate. -- Avi 04:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You should've noted many other editors also think it is potentially libelous (hence the dispute and not-uncontroversial-ness). Both sides of the story are better than one, IMO. --LifeEnemy 01:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

LifeEnemy, I apologize if me citing that policy caused this situation. That said, it is pretty clear that you were covered by that exemption and should not be in this situation in the first place. I have no problem with calling that decline reason listed above complete hogwash, as it makes me think the reviewing admin didn't even look at the policy page you provided. It clearly states the opposite that the admin claims. Personally I would seek another admin that is actually willing to look at written policy instead of ignoring it. Markovich292 06:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I know, man, he probably didn't read it and probably doesn't understand the 3RR rule very well, since he said any violation is blockable (despite the entire "exceptions" sections), and the 3RR page says first violation is only blockable up to 24 hours. An admin who actually knows the rules would probably be more helpful, but, it's alright, I don't really care too much anymore. They can't really hurt me. --LifeEnemy 01:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Personal Attack Report
I left a report on WP:PAIN a couple of days ago, viewable here. It does not appear that anyone has reviewed it in that time. Since it seems to have been much longer than the average response time now, I just am posting a request for somebody to take care of that report. Thanks. Markovich292 22:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I, for one, will never take action which favour editors who (in my opinion, tendenciously) repeatedly advance the viewpoint that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is not an antisemite. I doubt many other admins would care to, either. That is then why your pleas continue to be ignored. El_C 02:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * As has been stated repeatedly on the talk page there, it is not that people are trying to advance the viewpoint that he is not an anti-Semite. The whole idea is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and his anti-Semitism has not been proven to warrant this being called a fact on this site.


 * ThuranX is the one who violated policy, so this has nothing to do with showing favoritism. It is unfathomable how administrators can ignore a personal attack just because they share an opinion with the person that committed that attack.  Ignoring such an incident is obviously contrary to the moral obligation and duties of an admin, not to mention an invitation for others to break the rules in the future.   Markovich292 06:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You make it sound like you wouldn't do anything for someone who disagrees with you even if they were right. If that is really what you believe, than you are probably unsuited to be an admin. --LifeEnemy 04:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding this edit
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. — Moe Epsilon  14:05 September 17 '06

Give it a rest and move on, please. There's no need to kick him while he's down. Thank you. Nufy8 19:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Move on? Dude, that was like a month ago, why are you bringing it up now? Get over it. --LifeEnemy 22:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * This is why. Nufy8 22:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, it's true, is it not? --LifeEnemy 22:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * No, that's your own assumption. Nufy8 22:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Meh. --LifeEnemy 03:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Mediation notice
Hey! Sorry if this is really late, but there is a mediation cabal on the article you were awarded a barnstar for. Please look at it, and help. Thanks, Hemhem20X6 01:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for the barnstar! I was going to move it to my userpage, but I prefer to sumarize the reason for why it was awarded, so I figured I would check if you are fine with the short summary I was thinking of using to describe the barnstar you gave.


 * The Resilient Barnstar Awarded by LifeEnemy for keeping on-topic instead of personal within the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad debate. (22:08, 13 October 2006)

Is that summary ok with you? The reason I ask is because as far back as Archive 4 I can be seen (on more than one occasion) dealing with the issue amid personal comments made by others. Since I said a long time ago "you keep focusing on false ad hominem arguments aimed at me rather than looking for sources that meet wikipedia standards," I feel it is other editors that have heeded my words, so I don't think saying it the other way around is accurate.

Anyway, thanks again for the award and for putting so much effort into work on that article. Markovich292 20:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, specifically I was referring to listening when I mediated the problems between you and Amoruso, but I guess it doesn't matter too much if you want to summarize the text? Probably not. --LifeEnemy 07:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I saw your message, just thought I would say that my current description was only meant to be temporary until you came back with a response to my question. Since you have said how you feel, I will get rid of that now.  I don't fully agree with your assessment of the situation though so I think I will dispense with creating a new summary and just get rid of the few words I have. Don't get me wrong, I feel that you were instrumental in regards to getting another editor to recognize his own incivility, but I made statements in there that show I became "more resiliant in keeping debates on-topic instead of personal" independent of "the words of others."  Markovich292  23:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

page restoration
Hi LifeEnemy,

Sorry, I've seem myg0t get nominated for deletion and deletion review so many times (not to mention deleted, restored, redeleted, and re-restored so many times) that I'm unwilling to restore the page at this time. Basically, it just describes myg0t as an online group dedicated to disrupting online gaming. It describes some of their methods of disruptions and humiliation, illegal activities, and publicity. Beyond that, I'm unwilling to undelete the article at this time.

Sorry,

Deathphoenix ʕ 04:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)