User talk:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington/Archive/Archive17

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For a keen eye in spotting block-evading sockpuppets. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 23:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, ASCII. You are very kind. I am quite certain that the IP addresses listed as a part of the investigation were La goutte given their editing style and history. However, I am quite concerned that a complete ban – [3] – may not be the best solution since La goutte was generally a productive editor with the exception of Singapore-related articles as far as I am aware. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 23:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That was also my impression of her: that she is someone well-meaning but who acts foolishly on some occasions. I don't think the recent socking is serious enough to prevent an eventual unblock if she promises to stop the

WP:POINT violations that got her blocked about a month ago. I have nothing to do with Toddst1 banking her page by the way. Based on a recent ANI controversy involving him, I have the impression Toddst1 reacts a bit prematurely sometimes. Anyway, that matter can be easily remedied after she is unblocked. I don't think that an admin blanking her page is a "complete ban". ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 02:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington, thank you for giving more support and evidence on [4] thread which i initiated on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. As you see, both the accounts have been blocked indefinitely and some of their user permissions had not been removed which is totally unfair. I have now requested on the thread that user rights from both accounts namely, User:La goutte de pluie and User:Pluie lite be removed as the actual person behind these accounts have been confirmed/proved of sock-puppetry as this is a fully valid reason. Again, thanks a lot for your help on this :). TheGeneralUser (talk) 08:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding that same issue, Sir Nicholas, what I wanted to say was that it's unlikely La goutte de pluie would evade the block with her known alternate account.
I did assume that the block wouldn't be evaded at all, but I stand corrected.
Amalthea 09:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message on my talk page but I am not a new editor...just an IP editor...I prefer IP editing....somehow I think having a "name" draws discussion away from the topics and focuses it on personlised distractions... All the best. 86.45.54.230 (talk) 18:34, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your position, but when you are involved in contentious disputes it is always better to have a user name (which does not have to be personally identifiable) as it will give your commentary more weight in the eyes of those who are new to discussions. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and our editors gain a reputation and trust over time. :-) — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 18:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I respectfully disagree. My reasons being those I posted above. All the best. 86.45.54.230 (talk) 18:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An RM based on opinions expressed in the AfD. Hope you can chime in, as you did in the AfD! CMD (talk) 00:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

... Nearly headless?? How can you be Nearly Headless ??? [: )] --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The Editor's Barnstar
	A tad bit late no doubt, but still you deserve this for the excellent work on Norwegian butter crisis Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Srikanth. I did create the article but the real credit goes to Prioryman, for developing it further and nominating it for DYK. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 13:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nick. I've seen you around and have only a positive impression of your editing. YRC crossed about three different lines. They are an experienced editor, and have been blocked many times before, so they know what's allowable and what isn't. We do not have a separate process for blocking vested contributors. Everybody is subject to the same standards. If YRC wants to avoid being blocked in the future, they can easily do so. Please don't intentionally or unintentionally shield them from responsibility for their actions. I've got an editor on my talk page wondering if it's time for an indef block after 15 iterations of the block cycle. My intention is to stop the problem before it gets that bad. Jehochman ^Talk 12:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, since you recently participated in

As a participant to previous discussions at the South Tibet/ Arunachal Pradesh / Arunachal Pradesh dispute / South Tibet dispute talk page, you might be interested to participate to the following poll. Thanks, --Pseudois (talk) 04:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at [email protected] (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at [email protected]. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 07:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Young June Sah --Yjune.sah (talk) 20:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nick, My apologies for anything perceived as unhelpful. For the policy, please see

Here is the definition that I had in mind from that source: 1. chiefly concerned with one's own interest, advantage, etc, esp to the total exclusion of the interests of others.

With regards to using "self-interest" as a synonym for selfishness, there is some room for debate. It seems useful, and common in regular usage, to distinguish between actions that harm oneself, actions that help oneself, and perhaps actions that are neutral to oneself (if that is possible, given opportunity costs and baseline energy expenditure). Furthermore, the same evaluation applies with regards to others. In common usage, we do not say that someone is being selfish when she donates money or time to a charity (which does not materially benefit herself), even if making the donation makes her feel good and she prefers to live in a society where people make such donations. Such broader consideration is sometimes called enlightened self-interest. We say that someone is being selfish when his choices materially benefit himself at the expense of others.

I would be happy to discuss this more, as well as to discuss the sources from the game theory page. Which of those sources do you think is inadequate, and which (if any) are good candidates for importing to this page? Jj1236 (talk) 19:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - I see that you have repeatedly removed two edits I made to the page. Can you please explain why, when I had provided 4 high-quality sources to support that edit? Please discuss on the Talk page of the article. Thanks. Aurorion (talk) 21:19, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read

WP:UNDUE before making such edits on a biographical article. The lead section is not a place for speculation and allegations. Modi was also recently cleared by a committee appointed by the Supreme Court. Suggest you take this to the talk page of the article, where this can be discussed and addressed by other editors too. I also recommend that you do not take editing biographical articles lightly and understand policies and guidelines adequately before re-adding contentious material about a living person. Thank you. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 21:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for your reply. I understand that

WP:BLP edits should be done carefully, but I don't see the problem with my edit. The only statement I added was that Modi is a "controversial figure" - hardly a libellous statement. Like I mentioned on the Talk page, this was supported by 4 high-quality sources - every one of them calling Modi a "controversial" person. There are many other articles of living people where the lead section has similar statements: George W. Bush, Bal Thackeray, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Henry Kissinger, Helmuth Nyborg for example. So why is this particular edit not suitable? Thanks. Aurorion (talk) 21:32, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

"Controversial" is not the word I have an objection to, but your careless addition of "for his alleged role in the 2002 Gujarat riots". The article on George W Bush does not say that he was controversial because some portion of the media called him a war-criminal or an incompetent administrator. Such additions to the lead section of a BLP are better discussed on the talk page before being taken to article space. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 21:44, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. Even that "alleged role" as the reason for his "controversial" image was mentioned in all the sources - but if I understand correctly, your point is that it is unsuitable to be in the lead? I will remove this part and re-add the remaining part of the statement with sources. Aurorion (talk) 21:48, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since we have already initiated a discussion on this, you should make suggestions and discuss this on the talk page before making changes to the lead section. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 21:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I think your post here may have strayed into the wrong section. pablo 15:20, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indeed. Moving it where it belongs. Thanks for the heads up. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 15:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well by all accounts a heads-up is what you need ... maybe it'd be best to gaffer-tape it while it's in place ... pablo 15:45, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I dispute your reversal (twice) of my mention of Schwarzenegger's son with his housekeeper (secretly) in the lead section (a non-contentious, well referenced, and well known fact). In the West in the modern era, we don't try to pretend things didn't happen (especially in encyclopedias) just because they don't look good for someone, especially a retired politician. Please see Talk:Arnold Schwarzenegger and discuss further if you wish. I am ready to proceed to arbitration or other means if you do not reverse your edits. Facts707 (talk) 05:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I object to the inclusion of the content that you have added to the lead section. Please take it to the

biographies of living persons' noticeboard for seeking third party opinion. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 08:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Sorry, I didn't notice. The template didn't say that the discussion was already listed by the bot. Thanks for the notification. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 11:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sir Nick, I removed the categories of some biography articles of some Chinese Americans since I noticed a large number of them have been already added with redundant child categories added. The Elixir Of Life (talk) 05:38, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]