User talk:N-HH
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
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.
AN/I report
I have made a report to the AN/I over your automatic assumption of bad faith on my part. See here: [1]--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)
- I'm not sure why you think I would do that, or why you thought it appropriate to come and canvass me to do that – especially while simultaneously acknowledging that it would not be accepted by others and while acknowledging that constant reversion is a problem. N-HH talk/edits 16:29, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- I am not "canvassing" and if i did am not aware that this counts as "canvassing" then i take back my request Peterzor (talk) 16:58, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- Well, it's not technically canvassing as the term is usually used in a WP sense, but you're trying to solicit me to make a contentious edit on your behalf which, whatever you call it, is a pretty odd thing to do. If I want to make an edit, I'll make it; if I don't, I won't do it simply because someone else asks me to. N-HH talk/edits 17:39, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why you think I would do that, or why you thought it appropriate to come and canvass me to do that – especially while simultaneously acknowledging that it would not be accepted by others and while acknowledging that constant reversion is a problem. N-HH talk/edits 16:29, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
AN/I WIKIHOUNDING by Collect?
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
N-HH, please read this
I said above that I apologized for my behaviour. Look, I have major depression, it doesn't mean being sad all the time, at times it can mean that I can get angry. No that is not an excuse for my earlier conduct, I was unacceptably uncivil to you and I accept responsibility for the consequences. I also apologized to Writegeist, and I have taken long breaks on Wikipedia. We need to take each others' contributions seriously here.
Please calm down and don't jump to conclusions about use of an anonymous account because you are angry that I have posted an AN/I about your conduct. Anonymous accounts are used when users forget to sign in, sometimes I have forgotten to sign in.
Yes I am frustrated that no progress seems to be resulting from our conversations on the talk page, and I share a huge portion of the blame for that because of my earlier uncivil remarks several months ago that appear to have obviously coloured me in your view as a disreputable person whom you appear to be disgusted with. However I will say that such colouring of me in that manner is a very two-dimensional perception of the nature of my character. I do not view you in the same way, you obviously show concern for Wikipedia principles, you do not appear to be a POV-pusher as users committed to improving articles have seen too commonly on Wikipedia.
I know what your views on my editing are, and I am engaging in conversation on the talk pages that you have criticized me for not doing, when I did make that previous edit that took out the first part of the sentence, it was after I left a final point with my reasoning to which you gave no response. I said in that edit that I was willing to discuss it further. However I will tell you that I see problems with your editing is your tendency to oversimplify issues such as on the Fascism article that are complex with multiple levels and require very careful analysis to avoid misrepresentation, for instance just to say that "fascism opposed socialism" is an oversimplification that only describes the what. To say "fascism opposed socialism's support for social ownership of the means of production" while acknowledging socialist influences on fascism would be better because it briefly explains the why along with the what.--R-41 (talk) 12:23, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- The only thing I am "angry" about, if anything, is the posting of crap, random content in WP pages and entries and the misrepresentation of sources and reality. Your doing that under the cover of anonymous IPs, and your saying there are "problems" with my editing, based on content I often didn't even add, together with your spuriously accusing me of "misrepresentation" of material and "oversimplification", is simply the icing on the cake of that fundamental problem. I am not interested in your personal issues or bothered by your occasional flame-outs or runs to ANI to post silly threads there. And, btw, fascism, while obviously borrowing ideas from it, opposed actually existing socialism pretty much in its entirety, and not just for the one reason you cite above. That is more or less what the lead currently says and exactly what it should say. N-HH talk/edits 13:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- You are not helping your case here N-HH by continually being combative accusing me of posting "crap", calling AN/I reports over repeated instances of combativeness as "silly", accusing me of "doing that under the cover of anonymous IPs" - I am not doing that and if you choose to report me for sockpuppetry on the recent edits that you have been scanning through, I will defend myself from that on that because I have nothing to hide, I forgot to sign in. If you have accusations to make about my editing behaviour, make them at the appropriate venue, I for one am going to add to the report this material of you calling editing that you disagree with as "crap". Yes, I believe that you have oversimplified the issue of fascism's relations with socialism, when the Italian Fascist movement began in World War I it initially openly declared itself to support socialist policies, but it shifted after World War I to accomodate the political right, it maintained some socialist themes while abandoning the core conventional conception of socialism - social ownership of the means of production, though it maintained a very radical socialist theme of contempt towards the habits of the bourgeoisie such as support of decadence, plutocracy, and atomized individualism at the expense of social collective needs.--R-41 (talk) 20:45, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- R-41, are you saying that you "forgot to sign in" on May 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, and 30? Yet you also "signed in" on each of those days except the 6th and 14th and edited under your account. TFD (talk) 20:51, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- TFD, if you want to accuse me of sockpuppetry go ahead, I am not using such anon accounts for sockpuppetry, and I will fully endorse you undertaking a sockpuppet investigation because I am not guilty and will leave it to administrators to decide. Also people notice when they forget to sign in and then sign in. Do you have any evidence whatsoever that I am using those accounts abusively to convey myself as a different person? It is so obvious that I am the same person from those edits, what's the point in me doing so? In fact, on my talk page, after I left the web and returned to make an edit, I was signed out and when I made a recent edit on the talk page it was with an anon account because I went to edit but did not sign in obviously out of error, and that demonstrates that I am not doing sockpuppetry.--R-41 (talk) 21:06, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- N-HH, the AN/I report was not closed, they ran out of space and put in into archieve, since it is still active I have reopened it here: [2], you have continued to use combative uncivil remarks aimed at me which has reached violation of WP:NOTBATTLE, it is disrupting the article talk page that is supposed to be about content.--R-41 (talk) 22:15, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- Look, if you want to turn everything into a drama and legitimate criticism, including of your broader editing, into perceived personal slights, that's up to you. What is notable here is that you are railing on about these things – and making as many, if not more, personal attacks on me as I supposedly am on you – while pointedly avoiding engagement with my direct and clear criticism of the actual content you have been adding to pages here, eg at Nazism and Italian Fascism. The fact that it is obvious, once one notices it, that it is you editing extensively from those IPs does not detract from the fact that it is clearly not a mistake and that it is being done, most likely, to avoid transparent scrutiny of the overall pattern of editing or to suggest that you are not editing as regularly or as widely across all these topics as you actually are. And ANI only ran out of space for your thread because it had sat there for days with no one thinking it worthy of comment. And it would seem that, now you have disinterred it, people are commenting; but, perhaps unsurprisingly, not so far with the result that you might have hoped for. N-HH talk/edits 08:44, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm telling you the truth about the IPs, you just happen to be so angry, bitter, and appear to hate me so much that you jump to that conclusion, I told you I forget to sign in and if you really do not believe me, you are paranoid. Please report me, right now on accusation of sockpuppetry, do it and be done with it.--R-41 (talk) 19:49, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- Look, if you want to turn everything into a drama and legitimate criticism, including of your broader editing, into perceived personal slights, that's up to you. What is notable here is that you are railing on about these things – and making as many, if not more, personal attacks on me as I supposedly am on you – while pointedly avoiding engagement with my direct and clear criticism of the actual content you have been adding to pages here, eg at Nazism and Italian Fascism. The fact that it is obvious, once one notices it, that it is you editing extensively from those IPs does not detract from the fact that it is clearly not a mistake and that it is being done, most likely, to avoid transparent scrutiny of the overall pattern of editing or to suggest that you are not editing as regularly or as widely across all these topics as you actually are. And ANI only ran out of space for your thread because it had sat there for days with no one thinking it worthy of comment. And it would seem that, now you have disinterred it, people are commenting; but, perhaps unsurprisingly, not so far with the result that you might have hoped for. N-HH talk/edits 08:44, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- R-41, are you saying that you "forgot to sign in" on May 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, and 30? Yet you also "signed in" on each of those days except the 6th and 14th and edited under your account. TFD (talk) 20:51, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- You are not helping your case here N-HH by continually being combative accusing me of posting "crap", calling AN/I reports over repeated instances of combativeness as "silly", accusing me of "doing that under the cover of anonymous IPs" - I am not doing that and if you choose to report me for sockpuppetry on the recent edits that you have been scanning through, I will defend myself from that on that because I have nothing to hide, I forgot to sign in. If you have accusations to make about my editing behaviour, make them at the appropriate venue, I for one am going to add to the report this material of you calling editing that you disagree with as "crap". Yes, I believe that you have oversimplified the issue of fascism's relations with socialism, when the Italian Fascist movement began in World War I it initially openly declared itself to support socialist policies, but it shifted after World War I to accomodate the political right, it maintained some socialist themes while abandoning the core conventional conception of socialism - social ownership of the means of production, though it maintained a very radical socialist theme of contempt towards the habits of the bourgeoisie such as support of decadence, plutocracy, and atomized individualism at the expense of social collective needs.--R-41 (talk) 20:45, 30 May 2013 (UTC)