Talk:Enronomics

This article was previously nominated for deletion. The result of the discussion was Redirect.

Untitled[edit]

Following text was reverted by User:The Anome for the reason that it came from a controversial troll 142.177.x.x (now banned). When is this, alone, good enough to justify reversion?

It's not yet as popular a phrase as Enrongate, in use, though it has appeared in several papers. The terms Republenron and Denroncrat are sometimes used to describe Republicans and Democrats, respectively, who took money from Enron that was presumably raised by means of enronomics. It's not yet as popular yet as Enrongate in its use, though it has appeared in several papers.

One innovation of enronomics is the financial metric "hypothetical future value" - a variant of the expected value metric used in some forms of standard accounting. One innovation of enronomics is the financial metric "hypothetical future value".

If we don't revert edits they make after they are banned then that only encourages them to continue subverting the ban. --mav

I disagree with this policy when the particular edits in-question show some improvement over the behaviour that got the user banned in the first place. Please read the text you are about to revert. The text should be judged on its own merit. Note, this is not necessarily an endorsement of the actual text, but a complaint about the reason for reversion.

You can disagree or not but Jimmy Wales has stated that we needn't consider every edit made by a blocked user. Doing so only encourages them to continue subverting the block. --mav

Is this censorship likely to be extended to me if I were bold enough to restore the deleted text (simply because I disagree)? I am not picking a fight here, just interested in the rules of engagement on edit wars.

If you think the text is NPOV and has valid info then go ahead and re-incorporate it. In short, if you feel up to going through the considerable effort of checking 142's facts and NPOV then go ahead and reincorporate 142's edits. But don't expect others to give 142 the same consideration. If you like you can be the 142 filter. --mav

Renaming the article?[edit]

In my opinion, this article should be renamed to "Accounting of Enron", or something else a bit more professional. I'm not convinced that "Enronomics" is a pervasive term. The google test yields only 961 results. --Bletch 21:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect created[edit]

As per result of consensus at this Article for Deletion. Ifnord 17:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]