User talk:N-HH

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Lieutenant of Melkor[edit]

I have filed an incident report against Lieutenant of Melkor. I invite you to come and review the complaint - comment completely at your option. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents --Paisan1 (talk) 11:13, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

AN/I WIKIHOUNDING by Collect?[edit]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Can I ask you what you think of this?[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bevo74#Can_I_run_this_by_you.3F_.28a_new_intro_for_Welsh_People.29

Just the attempted new introduction really, for Welsh People. You could comment here or on my talk if you wish to.

I'm trying to do it off the discussion page at the moment, and am looking for feedback. We just need something fair and balanced, and I personally feel the term "ethnic group" effectively excludes me from the article. Even in this new sense of the word, when used in this context it combats the concept of British Welsh - which most people in Wales would actually say they are if asked. In reality, there are a more than one ethnic group in Wales - though I really don't see what's wrong with just using the term "people". We do currently have 'overkill', and it's not a good look. People from Anglesey are actually very different to people from Cardiff: there's two 'ethnic groups' right there. The large island of Anglesey could almost be the independent Wales a number of people on Wikipedia want to see. The capital though? Not even slightly. And of course, once upon a time the 'ethnic population' of the UK were racially non-Caucasian of course - I don't think we can easily get rid of the 'genetically different' connotation there. I'm wondering if this new rather-different use isn't coming more from America? Actually, I'll ask you that on the discussion page. Thanks. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:14, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Jews and Communism re-nominated for deletion[edit]

Since you contributed to or were otherwise involved in the original afD nomination, you may or may not wish to comment on the new afD nomination, found here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jews and Communism (2nd nomination) I intend on leaving this note to everyone who edited the first AFD and has not yet contributed to the new discussion. Thanks! :) Flipandflopped (Discuss, Contribs) 16:59, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Molyneux RfC[edit]

Information on Wikipedia is based on verifiability, not "truth", and I've presented a pageful of sources that describe his career directly as "philosopher" or make equivalent reference to it by using similar words like "philosophy show" or "philosophical website". You may believe that it can't be true that he is a philosopher, based on your personal standard that the word has "a specific academic or quasi-academic meaning", but that is irrelevant in the face of a massive number of sources of all types describe him as one. If a sufficient number of reliable sources called Wilf Lunn a "scientist", then that is what we'd have to include in WP even if you believe what those sources say was untrue. Please reconsider, or please explain why so many verifiable sources should be ignored in favor of your belief. --Netoholic @ 04:30, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Please do not leave me messages badgering me about what I posted at an article talk page, especially when you clearly have not actually understood what I said there. Where did I talk about my "belief" or "personal standard"? I explicitly referred to the need for sources and allowed for the possibility that those sources might well be found to describe him as a philosopher – however I also pointed out that those sources need to be authoritative and relevant and the description widespread. My conclusion, and that of others it would seem, is that the ones you have cited do not appear to meet that burden. Cherry-picking from a random pool of the mostly fringe and sympathetic does not count. N-HH talk/edits 08:49, 1 June 2014 (UTC)