User talk:N-HH

WP policy

Why so short deletion dates? That means that you do not get a chance to comment before deletion! UlfSamuelsson (talk) 20:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Mercenaries:

What kind of references are you looking for? I have never seen this aspect of Al-Qaida etc. raised, so I doubt that it is possible to find many references.

That does not neccessarily mean that you can rule it out, that they should be considered to be Mercenaries, if they really believe that they would personallt gain from Martydom.

A Mercenary

• (a) is especially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;
• (b) does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities;
• (c) is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party;
• (d) is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict;
• (e) is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and
• (f) has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.

Abu Musab az-Zarqawi and many arabs fighting in IraqAfghanistan would fulfil (a), (b), (d), (e) and (f).

What about (c)? Until this has been through a courtroom, the legality of people aspiring to become martyrs, for personal gain, is quite hazy. An entry on mercenaries would need to show that the legal status IS unclear.

UlfSamuelsson (talk) 20:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, two points -

• Deletion - there are different processes for deletion, some of which are pretty much instantaneous (eg in the case of blatant vandalism or joke page creations), while others allow for some time to elapse for the deletion proposal to be contested or discussed at length. I added a deletion note to the page, which meant the page would stay for seven days before being deleted, and during that period, anyone could simply halt the process by removing the tag. However another editor came along soon after and simply re-directed the page title to the page that already existed on the subject matter. That was actually a much better solution, and it's not really possible, I don't think, to argue that such a move should have been open to discussion or delay in any way.

• Mercenary - the point here is really about original research. This should be flagged up by your own admission that you have "never seen this aspect of al Qaida etc raised". Wikipedia articles are meant to be a concise, encyclopedic amalgamation - without any novel synthesis - of verifiable facts and interpretations of things, as asserted by third party authorities and as found in reliable sources such as academic texts and studies, mainstream news reporting etc - editors here are not meant to insert their own speculation or conclusions about things, however well-argued (or otherwise), or however obvious those points may seem to that one editor, or even to most editors. Unfortunately this policy is as often as not ignored, hence why its importance may not always be immediately understood. I know it sounds impossibly legalistic, but generally speaking, even if something is not clear, you would need to find a reliable and authoritative source that says as much, and which also suggests that the lack of clarity on the point in question is something significant and notable, as well as not being a WP:FRINGE viewpoint.

Anyway, I'm not that regular a contributor here, but hope the above helps/explains. There's a happy medium somewhere between adding content where the underlying point is unsourced and unattributed, and adding whole lifts of text direct from primary sources. --Nickhh (talk) 14:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

ps: there is a sister site, Wikisource, where complete primary source content such as UN resolutions and conventions can be found. However, again, the content you were trying to add appears to be there already, at least in part

comment moved on arb clarification request

Hi, I've moved your reply into your own section as threaded discussion is not wanted on the Arb request pages. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, OK, no big deal. Thanks for the courtesy tip though. I know it might seem slightly churlish in response, but I would just make the observation that it says all one really needs to know about the systems here - and indeed most bureaucratic systems - that while representatives of the authority being addressed pass by to tinker with layouts and correct rather trivial formatting points, everyone is still waiting for one of them to offer something resembling a coherent or definitive response to the substantive, but rather simple, question that was originally posed. I'm somewhat bemused that one admin's rather silly error can lead to this much effort having to be expended, which in turn leads to so little being achieved by way of resolution of the problem. --Nickhh (talk) 10:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Troubles banner

Some Suggested text for a RfC on the banner. --Nate^t/_c 13:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Cheers for making a start on this btw, it no doubt helped finally to get the problem sorted. That was 40-odd minutes of my life that I won't get back - just think, all of us could have spent the time we've lost doing something constructive here, or doing something else altogether. --Nickhh (talk) 09:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD on Jonathan Cook

I think you know your participation in that discussion is a violation of your topic ban. Please delete your comment there. Mr. Hicks The III (talk) 17:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)