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)

I think you know that douchebags be lurking. Now "douchebag" clearly is not referencing any particular editor, only a general comment on those who serve no purpose here other than to harass other editors, probably out of some sense of empowerment that their real life lacks. nableezy - 17:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you know you are a moron this is rather pointless, please delete your comment from my talk page (first contributor, not the second, obviously). --Nickhh (talk) 23:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

And I think you probably will be blocked for that, so might just be best to remove the entire section. On another note, some familiar language from a certain ex-arb shows up here. Just thought that might make you smile. nableezy - 00:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Hicks seems to be a sock, but I'd still suggest that too much participation here should probably be avoided. Raising sources where others may not be aware, I think that would fall under WP:IAR (I'd be glad to convey them either way). As to continuing the discussion... well, unless we're ready to give up the topic bans altogether, then this is presumably covered. Or at least right at the line. I'm not quite ready to see the topic bans lifted completely, which isn't to say I support them in all or any cases; I just think if they are lifted there should be some resolution to do so, and some resolution of what to do from there, so that we don't just end up right back where things were. Mackan79 (talk) 00:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

As I think I stated at the time, I'm not too fussed on a practical level about the topic ban, in that I don't really want to engage in I-P issues (which were only about 20% of anything I've ever looked at here anyway). Most pages there are screwed really, and the politics that dominates is rather unpleasant. I have no stake either way in the conflict, I just noticed quite a lot of nonsense going on on some pages, and would occasionally step in to point the worst of it out and insist on international, neutral norms for things, rather than the partisan language or interpretations of either side. On the specific issue that led to the Arbitration case, I think I made a total of about eight edits in four months, three months prior to the case - which of course, don't forget, "we" initiated. However, precisely because of all that, I do still slightly resent the implication carried by the mass ban, that I'm some kind of troublemaker or disruptive editor, or just as much a partisan as certain others. And tbh I'm not sure the I-P space is really that much better than it was - in terms of content or editor actions - for all these topic bans. Plenty of relatively blameless people got caught up in them, plenty of others who were worse slipped the net and of course there are plenty of new warriors to take their place. Plus I'm quite sure some of the worst offenders from the past are socking their way through their bans anyway.

On the issue at hand, of course the Cook AfD skirts close to the ban (wherever you draw a line, there's always something right up against it), which is why I was careful not to make a bold "Keep", and to stress the notability point and post something on the journalism project page - ie actually trying to keep it out of the I-P arena altogether. I also of course left a note on Nishidani's page to say as much. And also to note that someone would no doubt be "diving in on either of us" because of it. Not a genius piece of prediction perhaps, but I wasn't disappointed. --Nickhh (talk) 10:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

ps: yes, interesting language from Mr Blacketer - the man who of course managed to get himself elevated to ArbCom and dish out random blocks and bans to others, after evading his own ban. Don't you love authority structures?

pps: rather sadly I suspect that the renewed attention on Cook's page will lead to 101 people trying to load it with nonsense from CAMERA and suchlike (this has already been raised on the AfD page), turning it into a hatchet job. This of course is an ongoing problem with media/journalism pages - half of them have huge sections detailing alleged "bias against Israel". And even though I have an interest on media topics and some knowledge of them, I am of course barred from commenting on any of it, because they've suddenly therefore become "I-P pages", even though the point is precisely that they shouldn't be.

Bully for us

I just noted we two constitute a 'gang of bullies'. The problem is, who's the gang-leader and who the henchman? We might well have to fight this one out, Nick, between the two of us, because I don't mind being called a mobster, but rather dislike the idea people might think I'm just an average thug, following the lads. Now, if you would consider just accepting that you're my sidekick, and that I call the shots, I might not reach for a 'rod' to start shooting in your direction. People in here don't like ambiguity! CheersNishidani (talk) 16:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Notice

I've requested clarification here: [1]