User talk:Msnicki

		The Editor's Barnstar
		for being so clear eyed, consistent, and even in tone while working on the whole Deluna page/umpteen socks investigation. Good work!Tao2911 (talk) 21:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

My goodness. Thank you. Msnicki (talk) 21:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	For keeping peace and letting everybody use their opportunities. APS (Full Auto) (talk) 22:37, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! Msnicki (talk) 22:45, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		Your one of the best debaters I have seen in some time. I have great respect for you my new friend. Moxy (talk) 20:22, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thanks for finding additional notability evidence for ConnMan

Yacz (talk) 20:24, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Resilient Barnstar
		AN/I can be quite a hectic place at times, but incredibly you managed to stay together in one piece the whole time. You are a really prolific editor Msnicki, don't let drama change peoples views on you as an editor! Cheers --Acetotyce (talk) 20:19, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I try my best. I usually learn something from every experience. Msnicki (talk) 20:28, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Editing BLPs

Greetings! I recently came across John Walsh (U.S. politician), and looking at the history I think you need to review the policy on biographies of living people. That policy directs us to be conservative regarding controversial information about living people, and your repeated addition of conjecture about academic misconduct does not fit with that policy. Based on your edit summary here, your motivations appear to be ideological and not editorial, which is another red flag - our purpose should be building an encyclopedia. VQuakr (talk) 15:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

It's not conjecture to report what the usual sanction is. That's simply the fact. Further, being opposed to academic misconduct is not "ideological" any more than being opposed to crime is "ideological". I simply know something about it. Msnicki (talk) 15:24, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, placing it in the BLP adjacent to the accusations is implying likely sanctions. It was a dubious at best edit from the start and should never, ever have been edit-warred back in once contested - again, the guiding principle in BLPs is caution. And yes, to use your hypothetical example, editing articles on people accused of crimes to add possible sentencing because of having "zero tolerance for criminal behavior" would also be ideologically motivated, inappropriate, and at odds with our core values. "Knowing something about the subject" as you say is wholly irrelevant. VQuakr (talk) 04:01, 1 October 2014 (UTC)