User talk:Enemenemu

Welcome
 Hello, and Welcome to Wikipedia!  Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

--- Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:


 * Table of Contents


 * Department directory

Need help?


 * Questions — a guide on where to ask questions.
 * Cheatsheet — quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes.
 * Wikipedia's 5 pillars — an overview of Wikipedia's foundations


 * The Simplified Ruleset — a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules.
 * Guide to Wikipedia — A thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia.

How you can help:


 * Contributing to Wikipedia — a guide on how you can help.


 * Community Portal — Wikipedia's hub of activity.

Additional tips...


 * Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes ( ~ ). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The [[Image:Signature_icon.png]] button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.


 * If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.

, good luck, and have fun.

Thomas Andrews Drake
nice work Decora (talk) 23:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * thanks Enemenemu (talk) 20:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Enemenemu i see we are both working on the HBGary article as well! small world? nice work there too btw. Decora (talk) 03:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

TWA 800
Hi, I made some comments on the talk page about some recent edits, please check them out when you have the chance. Cheers! LoveUxoxo (talk) 09:25, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll look into this! Greetings, Enemenemu (talk) 23:44, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, just my opinion, not necessarily right! Thanks for contributing to the article. LoveUxoxo (talk) 06:23, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Made a few edits, review them if you get the chance and see if you agree with them or not. Cheers! LoveUxoxo (talk) 23:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Jeffrey Alexander Sterling for deletion
The article Jeffrey Alexander Sterling is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Jeffrey Alexander Sterling until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  01:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Further media references have been added, and the article has been expanded. See also my comments on the Articles_for_deletion/Jeffrey_Alexander_Sterling page. -- Enemenemu (talk) 00:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Revert
Apologies for straight reverting but I am short on time. Find an RS and move it into the body and it will be fine. I should be able to do it myself in the next day if you don;t get the opportunity.Cptnono (talk) 02:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

We meet again
I see you have worked on


 * Jeffrey Alexander Sterling

nice job!

I think you might be interested in these?


 * Thomas Andrews Drake
 * Stephen Jin-Woo Kim

It is nice to see you again in the history page! cheers. Decora (talk) 21:44, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

March 2015
Your recent editing history at United Against Nuclear Iran shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Here are your reverts today:

1. First, after adding material into the lede here, you promptly reverted Plot Spoiler here, telling him that he should discuss it on the talk page first (the opposite of how WP:BRD is supposed to work).

2. Second, after you add new material on the Vestis case and I consolidated it into a new "Enteprises Shipping & Trading" section in the corporate campaigns, you revert it right back to the original section here.

3. Third, after I revert this (my first revert in the article today), you immediately revert again.

Your three reverts shown above do not include your reverts of Ori.livneh - that's fine, as his repeated addition of the same material was no doubt a mistake. The important thing to note here is that you've hit 3RR in a space of 40 minutes, are now duly warned (I apologize for using the template notice but you know how it goes), and you will be violating WP:3RR if you revert again. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:42, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Question about finding your CIA Bush meeting with Ford on 12 July 1976 on the article "Project Azorian"
Hello, I was reading the article Project Azorian when I wanted to read the references to the 2 Bush/Ford meetings at the Oval office you added to the article on 13:29, 2 January 2011. Both of the links are dead, but I was able to find and fix the ref to the 1 December 1976 meeting, but am having trouble finding the 12 July 1976 ref. (I apologize for not making those hyperlinks here, but I'm not sure how to do that. They are currently refs 11 & 12 in the article).

Anyways, I was wondering if you had any insights into finding/fixing this ref. If not don't worry. Just thought I'd ask. (It seems the FOIA site has changed hence the dead links but when you go the new one and search for the latter entry nothing comes up.) Anyways thanks for finding the excellent refs to the article. Sincerely Bkmays (talk) 08:23, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for identifying the broken links and fixing one of them. I've now also repaired the second link. Indeed, the structure of the FOIA site must have changed. Greetings, Enemenemu (talk) 21:00, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
 * KH-8 Gambit 3
 * added a link pointing to Lockheed
 * KH-9 Hexagon
 * added a link pointing to Lockheed

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)