Jump to content

User talk:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
RE: Najib Razak: new section
Line 60: Line 60:
::Your "notification" amounted to a threat that I was to discuss any edit with you or you would revert it without offering a reason. And you used twinkle to revert what was clearly not vandalism. If you would like help to understand our basic policies of WP:OWN and WOP:VANDAL and WP:TINKLE, I am sure the nice administrators at ANI will help you out of you post there.[[User:Maunus|·ʍaunus]]·[[User talk:Maunus|snunɐw·]] 17:21, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
::Your "notification" amounted to a threat that I was to discuss any edit with you or you would revert it without offering a reason. And you used twinkle to revert what was clearly not vandalism. If you would like help to understand our basic policies of WP:OWN and WOP:VANDAL and WP:TINKLE, I am sure the nice administrators at ANI will help you out of you post there.[[User:Maunus|·ʍaunus]]·[[User talk:Maunus|snunɐw·]] 17:21, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
:::Your bad faith commentary leaves me no choice but to discontinue any further discussion with you on this page. Thanks. — [[User talk:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington|Nearly Headless Nick]] {[[Special:Contributions/Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington|c]]} 18:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
:::Your bad faith commentary leaves me no choice but to discontinue any further discussion with you on this page. Thanks. — [[User talk:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington|Nearly Headless Nick]] {[[Special:Contributions/Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington|c]]} 18:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

== RE: [[Najib Razak]] ==

Hi there, I noticed that you reverted my edits on the [[Najib Razak]] article apparently because of FRINGE and BLP, and to move the discussion to TALK. There actually exists a discussion about this. In fact recently the french courts are investigating the bribery claims plus the upcoming elections meant that there's been new reports about the cases in the various news outlets, which means it is no longer FRINGE. (And the new links mean the old deadlinks can be replaced). Its hard to talk about it on TALK when I am having a onesided conversation as no one else wants to discuss there. Also I've tried to cover that section objectively as I only stated the facts and the official denials by government, so I'm not sure what I'm missing here. [[User:Zhanzhao|Zhanzhao]] ([[User talk:Zhanzhao|talk]]) 04:40, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 04:40, 11 April 2013

I prefer to keep discussions unfragmented.
  • If I post on your talk page, I will notice any replies posted there.
  • Unless you request otherwise, I will reply here to comments made here.
  • I will usually post a brief note on your talk page to let you know that I have replied, unless your talk page instructs me otherwise.
  • If you write a reply to me here, I may decide to move your text back to your talk page in an effort to keep the thread in one place.
  • If you are just pointing out something written to me elsewhere.
  • Such pointers are useful if you've written to a comment I made many days ago.
  • Be civil and assume good faith. Trolling and personal attacks are likely to be removed.
  • To see older messages please view my archives.

Messages

Archives: The Basement  · My desk  · My Barnstars

Sir Nicholas <Shirt58 bows and tugs forelock, as base colonial convict type cannot afford a hat to doff>, it would appear to me somewhat odd that there are seven different universities of the same name in Cambodia. Is there some central coordinating body analogous to the University of California system of universities? --Shirt58 (talk) 10:07, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a private University, and I don't know much about their naming schemes. :) — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 05:25, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User Kondi ipblock exemption

I just noticed that User:Kondi has an ipblock exemption but you didn't log the rights. The reason "trusted user" seems inadequate for these rights. Can you give more details? Was this discussed with a CU? Thanks.--Doug.(talk contribs) 04:58, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry about the oversight. No, this was not discussed with a CU. I know the user personally and he let me know if a IP block affecting him whilst he was editing from a shared IP from an institution. We can either remove the rights now as they may not be required or log it in. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 05:15, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, np, I'll remove the rights and if they need them again, they can give a detailed reason and we can log it. Thanks.--Doug.(talk contribs) 15:19, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

Hi, how are you doing? Tony Yew (talk) 07:45, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nick, I am looking forward to this, for me, a new adventure. I do hope you will be there for all of us. (User talk:FreddieKevinDeSouza) —Preceding undated comment added 02:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Terrible Asian pride article

I nominated it for speedy deletion and other users removed it saying it was not a candidate and suggested I add it to the "Articles for Deletion" page but when I did a 5 year old previous deletion with no consensus popped up with a comment by you saying it needed to be re-written and that some time should be granted, but 5 years later that page is still a total joke. What now? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2012_December_7

Thanks. BillyTFried (talk) 02:42, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you think this article should be deleted, please consider nominating it for WP:AFD. However, in case you believe that this article would survive such process, consider trimming the content of the article so that only assertions backed by reliable and authoritative sources remain on the article. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 05:49, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I wasn't clear but what I am saying is that I already attempted to add it to WP:AFD, but when I do that instead of creating a new case it pops up that 5 year old No Consensus one you commented in that I linked to above, making it seem like there is no further steps that can be taken in that direction. BillyTFried (talk) 20:48, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can see, you've attempted to nominate the article for speedy deletion, however what I've suggested above is nomination for AFD. The article is now on AFD. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 05:05, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Arendra Modi

In this edit[1] you revert my edit using twinkle without supplying an edit summary or a reason for the reversion. That is not an ok way to revert good faith edits, especially not edits that have been explained in the editsummary of the one who made them. Twinkle reversions are for obvious vandalism. Recersion of any edit that is not obvious vandalism requires that at least you provide a reason in the editsummary, and at best that you start a discussion at the talk page. I was not impressed with your post to my talkpage suggesting that I am not allowed to edit the article without prior discussion. I am. And everyone is. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:28, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had left a notification on your talk page. The article has been edited by several users before and there are many portions of it which are currently in dispute. In such a scenario, it is always courteous to leave a comment on the talk page before jumping in and making changes to the lead section of an article. The biography article is about an individual, not the organizations that he is affiliated with. The qualities of the organizations are best described on their own pages, which is the practice on Wikipedia. For instance, Barack Obama's page does not say that he belongs to the left-liberal Democratic Party in the United States. The would be wide generalization. Leaving English translations of the names of organizations is neither helpful nor the practice on Wikipedia. If you require assistance with editing, it is always best to seek help on the talk page of the article so that other users can, if possible, support you with your request. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 16:21, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your "notification" amounted to a threat that I was to discuss any edit with you or you would revert it without offering a reason. And you used twinkle to revert what was clearly not vandalism. If you would like help to understand our basic policies of WP:OWN and WOP:VANDAL and WP:TINKLE, I am sure the nice administrators at ANI will help you out of you post there.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:21, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your bad faith commentary leaves me no choice but to discontinue any further discussion with you on this page. Thanks. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 18:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I noticed that you reverted my edits on the Najib Razak article apparently because of FRINGE and BLP, and to move the discussion to TALK. There actually exists a discussion about this. In fact recently the french courts are investigating the bribery claims plus the upcoming elections meant that there's been new reports about the cases in the various news outlets, which means it is no longer FRINGE. (And the new links mean the old deadlinks can be replaced). Its hard to talk about it on TALK when I am having a onesided conversation as no one else wants to discuss there. Also I've tried to cover that section objectively as I only stated the facts and the official denials by government, so I'm not sure what I'm missing here. Zhanzhao (talk) 04:40, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]