User talk:Msnicki

Barnstars and other nice things

		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)[reply]

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

		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)[reply]

		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)[reply]

Thanks for finding additional notability evidence for ConnMan

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

Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Inappropriate_Actions_and_behavors_by_Editors_Padenton_and_Msnicki

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Itsmeront (talk) 18:05, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ItsMeRonT

Hi User talk:Msnicki. I appreciate you're being more civil on Andreas Raab. It is quite different from Nim. You will not be able to convince me that you had good intentions when you went from one argument and then decided to trace my only other article and decided to AfD it. (I should be more precise, decided to flag it so that it could later be AfD) That to me is not a good idea for a number of reasons. Most of which you are already aware of from my incident report. There is no way when you do something like that, someone will not feel attacked by you. If you are used to working with students that may explain it :). When I created this article originally we had a number of people supporting it and contributing from a large community. We had editors come by and threaten to delete it. Eventually, the editors agreed that it was notable enough to remain. The matter was quite settled for a number of years. This is not like one of the other articles that nobody noticed, editors tried to help. I have no clue why the last arguments are now missing. I spent considerable time trying to find it. That and the fact that you argued the AfD on Nim against the Admins that closed it lead me to believe that you were not trying to help here but were more interested in being right. All that said, I did review your work and came to the conclusion before you mentioned it that you did have an IT background and have the capacity to be reasonable. From reading the article on Andreas, it should be clear that Andreas was the principal software developer on Squeak. He ran the community for 10 years or more. His work on software like EToys became the heart of the One Laptop Per Child movement. He continued to work with Kay, and he participated in other projects devoting himself selflessly to help others. His work on Croquet lead to the software that is used by universities around the world. It is currently used by Stanford University in their graduate classes to teach architecture, it's at the University of Texas, University of Penn, and a few more I'm not allowed to name, it is used in Brazil to teach teachers how to teach, it was used in Finland Aalto University, it was used by the Navy to design submarines. The Army currently uses the software to train soldiers returning home from active duty, and as I said, it was shown to president Obama, who expanded the program with an executive order. I could go on, for instance, the software was used at the Federal Reserve Bank in NY, and it is currently being reviewed by the UN and World bank and much more. Andreas wasn't just some guy, he was a brilliant software engineer whose light would have shown brighter except that he worked with the people that I consider the smartest people in programming that exist today. Alan Kay invented OOP and was instrumental in creating personal computers. David Smith was one of the first 3d creators and was Cheif Innovation Officer at Lockheed. Their focus was not on publishing or promotion, but actually writing good code. Have a look at Viewpoints Institute for more details if you are interested. I would appreciate your help in find a way to get this point across. Andreas was notable, is notable, and should be in Wikipedia. Not just because it was my great friend, but because he was an incredible, accomplished, and very notable person. I'm not sure if I did something to cause this response from you but, if I did, I apologize. I am used to getting my way so maybe that is it :) Itsmeront (talk) 00:56, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're simply wrong. I didn't "target" the Raab article. I tagged the Raab bio an hour BEFORE nominating Nim and long before I had ever heard of you. And I was just as civil, just as constructive during that Nim AfD. One thing I can see that may have changed is you. After your failed attempt to "filibuster" a change to the guidelines (as one editor termed it) at Wikipedia talk:Notability, I suspect it may be sinking in that it's not just me and Padenton who won't accept Reddit or any of these other unreliable sources you like so much and thought we were rejecting just because we're such evil people. Now you know, no one else here will accept those sources, either. The only people who will accept those sources are people like you who just don't know or care what our guidelines ask and display no interest in cooperating with them or any of the other conventions we follow here because the world revolves around them. Frankly, your behavior has been petulant, self-centered, disrespectful and childish and the only thing stopping me from returning the favor is that (a) I'm an adult and (b) I can behave myself. Msnicki (talk) 01:28, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Msnicki. I just wanted to let you know I'm building a timeline of what happened, and I'm really sorry that I missed that you tagged Rabb on the same day as NIM. I didn't notice it until after NIM closed and I'm not that fluent on knowing what happens when here. I'm building a timeline of events to see what happened when and I'm keeping an open mind. The fact that you changed your vote to keep is very much appreciated, but that has nothing to do with my timeline. If, as it appears, that you were not targeting me personally, I will address that in the incident report. I didn't want you to think that I'm doing this just because you are voting keep. I hope you can understand how it looked to me. I know you don't agree with changing policy to better capture developments in open source, but that was never intended to attack you. It was an honest hope to improve Wikipedia by allowing Wikipedia the opportunity to better record historical events of what's going on in Open Source. I'm happy to see that I'm not the first to suggest this, as there are a number of failed attempts to change policy in very similar ways. I thought what I was doing was unique. I'm sure it will fail, but it will come up again. There is a major problem today on the internet. We call it bit rot, but it's really just websites that are old and hold very valuable information are shutting down daily. Mostly because people just don't want to update the software that runs them. Netscape is just about to release their everything has to be HTTPS and that will cause, in my opinion decades of servers to disappear. This is a horrible situation made worse by Wikipedia policy that keeps people like me that know a good deal of some of the history from sharing it here. It is also horrible since Wayback (internet archive) is not going to be able to truly solve the bit rot problem. Yeah, Yeah I'll get off my, what did they call it, my Hobby Horse, but I really wanted to you know that if there was a misunderstanding between us, it very well could be that I didn't read the date of your notice. That my actions to support better rules for open source were not against you personally, and that if my timeline shows the issue clearly, I apologize. Itsmeront (talk) 23:41, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll wait for the apology that doesn't start with "if". But I'm not holding my breath. You don't seem like the type who ever changes his opinion and can admit he's wrong no matter what the evidence. You've consistently questioned my good faith based on absolutely nothing except your own baseless paranoia and wildly over-optimistic assessment of your own competence in an AfD. Msnicki (talk) 23:57, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Msnicki. I'm not sure I understand your revert. Two things: first half of what was changed was my comment not someone else's. Second, the main article was changed so now reference numbers no longer point to the right place. I edited them so they make sense to someone reading the comments. Had the references been more than just numbers I wouldn't have had to modify them. Do you have a better suggestion for people looking at the reference numbers to know which references she was actually discussing now that the numbers do not match? To be clear, I added a reference 20. So every reference mentioned before the change > 20 is now n+1. Itsmeront (talk) 04:54, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]