User talk:N-HH

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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.

My self-report to the ANI for my vulgar swearing personal attacks against you

Here is the link if you wish to comment: [1]--R-41 (talk) 03:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

1971 Bangladesh atrocities

Our conversation is getting mixed in with votes, do you think a separate section for threaded discussion would be a good idea? We could move our comments to it so it will be easier for all concerned to follow it. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

In principle, that probably would be an idea, but I think I've probably said my piece there and made the basic point I want to make. As noted, I'm actually agnostic about the actual title, I just wish people would focus a bit more and comment, with evidence, on the basis of actual policy (they very rarely do in RM discussions, or in similar debates such as AFDs). It's not on my watchlist so I'll probably let the rest of the debate pass me by. N-HH talk/edits

Iraq War in Anbar Province

Thank you for your edits. Feel free to make any others to the wording if you think it's not WP:NPOV. As I said, I'm extremely biased on this material; even though I tried to be as neutral as possible, no one's perfect. Also, if you think there are some better sources out there then the ones I'm using, please let me know. Palm_Dogg (talk) 17:56, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Cheers. I don't really want to get stuck in to the article in much detail; it was just that first sentence, which struck me not as POV as such as simply primarily describing something from the one perspective when I saw it on the main page. As a more philosophical side-point, I suspect that anyone who can at least admit that they might have a bias is quite possibly likely to be able to edit more neutrally than many editors who loudly assert that they have no such biases. We're all pretty much stuck with our own perspectives on the world, whether we like to acknowledge it or not, after all. It's a question of how we work round them. N-HH talk/edits 11:39, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Soviet Union comments

Thank you for providing a reasoned analysis. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Possibly slightly overwrought though, in toto. I think I'll leave it there as well, since it's ultimately a fairly trivial point and I'm at risk of getting a little frustrated over it (not least because it's a rather good example of where those claiming that they have the "reliable sources" on their side – because they've quoted interpretations they agree with from a couple of books – and that everyone else is engaged in "original research" simply for exercising some judgment and open-mindedness on a talk page are probably, in fact, further adrift from the actual point of WP rules and of WP itself than everyone else). As ever, WP editing runs the risk of overcomplicating the simpler things and oversimplifying the more complex aspects. There's a middle ground somewhere between those two options, and it shouldn't require thousands of words on a talk page to get there ... N-HH talk/edits 15:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I am R-41, I proposed a simple resolution to the problem, I apologize for the abusive behaviour I've done, I will be back off Wikipedia again soon

First of all, I will apologize to you as I did to Writegeist, I have been a total ass to people including you, and I am not a good regular editor here, I get too frustrated when things don't go my way. However the back and forth crap on "it is socialist!" "no it is not socialist!" is not helping anyone on the Fascism article, it should focus on what the fascists actually promoted, not on everything they opposed - the laundry list of everything they opposed will go on forever.--184.145.67.28 (talk) 13:05, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

AN/I report

I have made a report to the AN/I over your automatic assumption of bad faith on my part. See here: [2]--R-41 (talk) 13:54, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

edit request

hello N-HH this is an edit request am asking you to do, i cannot do my edit request on the talkpage because it would be pretty obvious that user:nug or some of his editing partners will be the first person to reply that and automatically reject it so can you please make this edit for me? the edit request is restoring the original infobox with predecessor and successor states list and all states including the baltic former soviet states.

i also agree with you on your remark that the constant reverting and adding is ridiculous but that does not mean the low quality version sohuld used for all time Peterzor (talk) 16:00, 27 May 2013 (UTC)