User talk:Enon

Useful Links
[|"Citation quick reference"] [|"Citation templates"] [|"Citing sources"]

Baseless attack
I do not appreciate your attempts to discredit me at the debates page. That you would go digging for dirt on me because of a simple content dispute is seriously uncivil. If you can't make arguments on substance, don't make your situation worse by focusing on the editor. Do you have any evidence whatsoever to back up your claim? No. As a reformed sock, I would hope that if I chose to sock again (which I won't), I'd be smart enough to not agree with myself within a minute if I want to maintain disguise. You can't make a solid argument for the content, so you start attacking me and the other user. That's dumb. NYyankees51 (talk) 19:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, perhaps I shouldn't judge you by your long talk page filled with complaints from the other editors you've ticked off. Or the three even longer archive pages containing more of the same, plus admissions to having about half a dozen sockpuppet accounts, for which you were banned and somehow convinced someone to reinstate you. I should be tolerant, even though your user page and edit history pretty clearly shows that you are rather intolerant yourself. I mean, just because you revert a referenced, good-faith edit with a curt "not notable", then revert it again without substantively responding to any of what I wrote on the article's talk page, why should I take that as anything but civil? And if a supposedly reformed sockpuppeteer gets a content-free "me too" post from somebody else within a minute on an obscure talk page that had never had a entry until I started it, and that me-tooer does another revert with another vapid comment, why should that be at all suspicious? Especially when yet another guy with an unusual user-page style and an edit history that looks rather like yours (but this one called "Soxrock24" a Red Sox fan, living in NY, yeah, that's the ticket...) chimes in on the article talk page with another one-line comment in your support, literally as I'm typing my reply to you and Me-too#1 on the same page that had been blank about an hour earlier, as it had been for several months. It must be purely coincidental, after all, I should know you're too smart for that (despite being caught before for abusing various sock accounts in pretty much every imaginable way).


 * Sorry for hurting your feelings, NYyankees51. But I did make a solid argument for the content - flexible and polite, too - and you didn't respond to any of it. You just contradicted, with no support, and without acknowledging the self contradiction I pointed out to you in your keeping a reference of exactly the same kind in the existing article while deleting mine. When I responded with evidence against your baseless allegations of hacking, you just repeated yourself. You aren't arguing, you're just asserting, contradicting and repeating. Opinions and unsupported speculations, no matter how often repeated, do not outweigh actual arguments. Enon (talk) 21:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I predominantly edit political/religious articles; I will tick people off no matter what I do on those articles. I'm not dumb enough to think - hey, I'm a Yankees fan, so I'll make a Red Sox fan sock, that will fool everybody! And then I'll agree with myself after one minute, no one will notice!


 * You didn't answer as to why you were digging for dirt on me. My socking happened almost two years ago; I was editing legitimately for three years before that and now almost two years after that. Do you go around doing this to every user you disagree with, digging up old and resolved stuff to discredit them?


 * I repeated my argument because your counterargument didn't warrant a new argument from me; the same one applied.


 * I once again suggest you find a way to make your arguments based on content, because attacking users personally is not going to work well for you. NYyankees51 (talk) 23:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Plastic film
See Plastic film. Thank you for your input. Pkgx (talk) 22:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of AirWatch


A tag has been placed on AirWatch, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here.  DGG ( talk ) 06:07, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Question for administrator: threatened abuse of privileges worthy of action?
Privileged user (not admin) John from Idegon has threatened to block me on a false pretext. On Talk:The Hill School revered user Alansohn said "This is bullying, plain and simple." Is John from Idegon's threatened abuse of privileges worthy of some administrative action?


 * As User:John from Idegon is not an administrator, he cannot block you. The template he placed on your talk page is an automated warning template, generally used for warning vandals. At this time, I will not make a comment regarding whether the warning is valid or not. Please initiate Dispute resolution. TheDragonFire (talk) 07:30, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Enon, from examining the edits, while both you and John got heated, there isn't anything that shows a personal attack on your part. With regards to the current dispute, like above, I would suggest dispute resolution to work on the issue you are having on the page. His edit was not vandalism however, and I would caution you to be careful what you consider vandalism. To John, that warning was not appropriate, as there wasn't a personal attack made. I am going to remove the warning, as this was inappropriate. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:51, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I don't think there is any dispute to resolve, I'm willing to let Alansohn's edit stand, but to be clear: this was not an incident where there is fault on both sides. John acted like a bully and needs to apologize. Someone such as John who bullies, mass-deletes material over objections, gratuitously insults, lies and threatens should not have privileges; if it's a habit, such people must be blocked or WP will continue its downward slide. Giving such people the benefit of the doubt just emboldens them to do it again and again, and encourages others to join in the abuse. This sort of behavior has become so epidemic that with every edit each editor risks being subject to such bullying. Worse, there is apparently no discipline of such editors without the victim being subjected to harassment, attacks and vast, time-sucking hassle, which usually ends with the victim being chided for being "heated", or even blocked, if the bully is with the in-crowd. This abuse enabled and conducted by the official hierarchy and procedures within WP is what drives editors away, it must stop. Enon (talk) 14:13, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Please be assured that if there is inappropriate behaviour, that it will not be allowed to continue, regardless of the tenure of an editor. Without reviewing any edits of yourself or John beyond this particular incident, I cannot comment on any history of behaviour. I think it's important that you stop viewing him as a "privileged user". He has autopatrolled, pending changes reviewer, and rollbacker rights, which are simply anti-vandalism tools granted to "trusted" users. He very explicitly has no more authority on matters of content than any other editor (even administrators are strongly discouraged from making "administrative rulings" on content). Please refrain from making comments such as "this sort of behavior has become far too common among frequent editors such as yourself", as this only serves to escalate the situation. If, as you suggest, John is not behaving correctly, then that will become evident very quickly on its own. Don't fight fire with fire is relevant here. As you may have noticed, I've placed a warning in bold on the article talk page. If the dispute continues, please come back here. TheDragonFire (talk) 15:16, 16 March 2017 (UTC)