User talk:Enjois

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edits
I have removed edit(s) you made here. Some or all of the content appears to be copy and pasted from here. Please remember that you must write in your own words. We cannot copy and paste from other websites. If you have made any other edits that are copy pasted, please delete them or rewrite them in your own words.

For further information, please read Copyright violations. If you have questions, please ask. Best wishes, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

January 2013
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Men's rights movement. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Binksternet (talk) 18:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Men's rights movement article probation
Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Men's rights movement, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages. ''The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you.''--Cailil  talk 19:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

minor edits
Hi Enjois - please don't mark all of your edits as minor. Your edits are not minor. This page explains what is considered a minor edit and what isn't. Thanks, Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Enjois, you are invited to the Teahouse
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. v/r - TP 16:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * For the reviewing administrator: This article is under community sanctions, which this user was properly informed of, and cannot be overturned w/o consensus.  The block is also logged with the edits that constitute edit warring.--v/r - TP 17:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Hopefully this will be some helpful advice
I'm comenting here due to the block, and I'm hoping this way of thinking will help you in editing articles. First is a comment that I made in a different discussion on the Mens Rights Talk page. A way of looking at Wikipedia is that Wikipedia reflects what is, and what used to be important to humanity. "Balance" is actually not a requirement of Wikipedia's articles. What's important is that Wikipedia reasonably accurately reflect what humanity has, and is, saying.

I believe one of the arguments against what you wish to include is that the sources you cite are not related to the Mens Rights Movement. This requirement is shown in WP: NOR at the end of the first paragraph. From the policy itself, "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented" (Bold Mine). To be specific to add that material you must demonstrate that the source is directly related to the Mens Rights Movement. Otherwise it is considered Original Research.

Also, if any of this is hard to read/understand I'm perfectly willing to elaborate. --Kyohyi (talk) 17:09, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * kyohyi what i don't fully understand is why is the information which i added continuosly being removed when if you read it it clearly has to do with men's rights in regard to domestic violence issues. can you elaborate on why people are censoring this information from being added on the men's rights movement wikipedia page? thanks so much.


 * Enjois (talk) 20:29, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, I haven't read the material, but, my underastanding of their argument is that it doesn't link directly in the material to the mens right's movement. While domestic violence is important to the Men's rights movement, any material added to the men's rights movement article would need a source that deals with the men's rights movement.  What the people opposing say is that while the sources may have to do with domestic violence, the sources don't say anything about the Men's Rights Movement.  Without the explicit tie to the Men's Rights Movement within the source we are synthesizing by making a connection that isn't in the source.  Does this help?  --Kyohyi (talk) 20:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

yes, and thanks for getting back to me : )

Enjois (talk) 22:59, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * If you agree not to edit that article for a week, I'll unblock you myself per this discussion. This wouldn't extend to the talk page, only the article.--v/r - TP 23:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes I agree and I will not edit that article page for at least 1 week. I appreciate it, Thanks : ) Enjois (talk) 23:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've unblocked your account. I will modify the log to reflect an article ban for 1 week until 16:10, 17 January 2013 UTC--v/r - TP 23:20, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

ANI notification
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. I'm dropping these templates on the talk pages of every user who has posted at Talk:Men's rights in the last two sections. This is not meant to imply that I necessarily find any of your edits problematic, and is simply meant to inform you. Kevin Gorman (talk) 07:00, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

December 2018
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:34, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Question
One more question when the block expires do I have to continure editing from this Enjois account or can I create a new account? Enjois (talk) 15:49, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Once this block expires, you will be able to resume editing. If you create any more accounts, either during this block, or later, you will be reblocked. You're lucky it was who determined that you should be blocked for two weeks. I would have blocked you indefinitely.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:54, 8 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Bbb23 you didn't answer my other question. Why am I unable to respond on the SPI archive page under "Comments by other users"? where it says accused parties are allowed to comment? Enjois (talk) 16:11, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * If an SPI is filed and an alleged puppet/master isn't yet blocked, they can comment at the SPI. If, as in your case, you are already blocked, you cannot, although you can defend yourself on your Talk page. Editors do not have the right to comment at SPI. Many reports are filed where the sock is already blocked. As an aside, you can never edit an archived report.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:15, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Got it, thanks for clearing that up Bbb23. One last question and I'm done (BTW I kinda needed this block in a weird way because I need more time to focus on other more important stuff in my life LIKE WALKING MORE AND GETTING EXERCISE instead of fighting rampant SJW political bias on WP)...which by the way is the only reason I created multiple accounts, if this was a fair non-biased NPOV encyclopedic website I would feel comfortable sticking to just one account and obeying the rules but these SJW elitist people are just horrible; they have clear political agendas that have nothing to do with truth and reality. Anyways, just had to get that off my chest. So my last question...I'm a little confused but you said you would've blocked me indefinitely however couldn't I still just create another account even if you did that? I mean since you blocked me indefinitely there would be no other way to edit w/o creating a new account right (unless I guess I just edited from an IP without actually joining)?? Enjois (talk) 16:28, 8 December 2018 (UTC)


 * P.S. even the user who blocked me lied and said "All of them have been POV editing on topics related to men's rights activism and the American alt-right" which is a blatant lie, there are several accounts that have no edits dealing with the alt-right or MRA...and I never pushed a POV, I only tried to add balance to otherwise terribly slanted and biased articles (always slanted in one direction of course). I always edited in a NPOV manner and used RS. The funny thing is I don't even like Trump but I made edits that may seem "pro-Trump" because every Trump-related article looks like it is written by the editors of the WaPo or NYTimes, I mean seriously what the hell ever happned to WP in the past year or two, it's a fucking joke. Jimbo Wales should be ashamed of what has happened to this encyclopedia. Have a nice day... Enjois (talk) 16:37, 8 December 2018 (UTC)


 * "I only tried to add balance to otherwise terribly slanted and biased articles (always slanted in one direction of course)" In other words, you tried to push a particular POV.  --JBL (talk) 17:00, 8 December 2018 (UTC)


 * No, you obviously didn't read through what I wrote. What I attempted to do is try to add a little bit of balance where I could so that the article wasn't completely slanted in a liberal/SJW POV/distorted direction. Which unfortunately is usually pretty difficult because ideological users tag team with each other and use all sorts of wiki-lawyering tactics to prevent the encyclopedia from being what it should be. Enjois (talk) 17:03, 8 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Enjois, your questions, your approach, and your bias are not conducive to editing here. Doing healthy things in your real life sounds like an excellent idea. Editing here doesn't. If you are later blocked indefinitely, which, unless you completely reform, sounds very likely, any new accounts you create will also be indefinitely blocked, just like with any other sockmaster. Socking with IPs will be treated in the same way.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:09, 8 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree I do need to take a break from WP, after all I can spend more time on other things I "ENJOIS" (no pun intended) like listening to electronic music (too many fucking genres out there) and of course WALKING more instead of always coming home straight from school. As far as editing in the future I'm pretty sure I'll be back (I will be more careful this time though so don't worry Bbb23...plus even if I get blocked again in the future I have other options e.g. family members homes, friends homes, school, etc so I can just edit WP from there. Oh and Bbb23 I noticed that you accuse me of bias but of course you probably let SJW editors off the hook and didn't address any of my concerns about what has been going on the past few years in terms of rampant bias on WP (could you be a part of the problem too)? Bye bye now...ENJOIS your day....Enjois (talk) 17:27, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * - I don't if either of you are monitoring this discussion, but "I will be more careful this time though so don't worry Bbb23...plus even if I get blocked again in the future I have other options e.g. family members homes, friends homes, school, etc so I can just edit WP from there." seems to me like a threat to evade a block if they get caught socking again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:38, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not threatening anything. I am simply stating that if I were to be blocked again in the future (which may or may not happen depending on how I choose to edit WP) I can just edit from a different address so there is really nothing biased SJW admins and editors like you can do to stop me from editing WP....have a nice day now : ) Enjois (talk) 17:56, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Beyond My Ken is undoing legitimate edits I previously made even though they were done by the book and in accordance with WP policy. You can check if you don't believe me, he just undid like 25 or 26 edits that were all kosher contributions, nothing POV or dubious or political. Can an admin step in here, is this allowed? Just because I was banned as a sock can every proper and legit edit that I contributed to WP just be undone by a user who is mad at me and I had a conflict with earlier today? This can't be proper Wikipedia policy. Enjois (talk) 17:46, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Any editor in good standing who wishes to revert my deletions of the edits made by you using your 19 sockpuppets is welcome to do so. They can be easily found on my contributions page. I'm just sorry that I don't have the time to examine all of your edits to determine if they should be deleted, and could only deal with the low-hanging fruit.You really don't seem to have any sense whatsoever of the seriousness of what you've done -- sockpuppetry eats away at the very fabric of trust that Wikipedia needs to survive. Also,  for someone who steadfastly lied again and again as IAFIS that they were not a sockpuppet and had never edited on Wikipedia before, you are pretty darn careless about throwing around accusations of "lying".  You do realize that "to lie" means "to not tell the truth", and not "saying something I disagree with", right? Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:44, 8 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Enjois, I've revoked your access to this page as your only use of it is disruptive.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:11, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

December 2018
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:29, 8 December 2018 (UTC)