User talk:N-HH

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


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

"Russian influence" title[edit]

The title of the article Russian influence on the 2016 United States presidential election is such an egregious breach of WP:POVTITLE. It's possible Russian intelligence really was involved - the more concrete statement that "they are one step removed" from the hackers involved I find far more plausible - but to just state here that Russia did this, and only qualify the knowledge later in the article, is a terrible disservice to readers. -Darouet (talk) 01:47, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Ha, I suppose you could argue it still leaves open the possibility of meaning "none", or "not much". Unfortunately any objectivity has gone out of the window on this topic in the real world and here on WP, which of course ultimately relies on real-world sources. I like to think that not being American I can view this latest obsession with Russia with a bit of detachment. The problem is that pretty much everyone in the US, from all parts of the political divide, seems united in wanting to blame the Russians for everything, and every assertion about alleged Russian malfeasance suddenly becomes an agreed fact, even among those who disagree about most other things. There's not much space for those taking a more sceptical line IRL or on WP (who also frequently get abused as "Putinbots" etc, even when they have nothing remotely to do with Russia or Putin). N-HH talk/edits 11:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
I think that if the sources are treated carefully, which should be standard practice anyway, the most egregious aspects of this can be avoided. I've found for instance that in many of the articles that cover police shootings in the U.S. - highly charged, controversial topics - conflict can be resolved by careful attribution, recognition of sources, and of what's also unknown. That approach would work on US-Russia articles as well, but it would require a critical mass of editors dedicated to this kind of assiduous sourcing. Right now, it's all too often a POV-shark-feeding-frenzy. -Darouet (talk) 20:24, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Okay on the RT feed going to C-SPAN 1. But watch this story as in the same day, CIA director confirmation hearing in the Hart Senate Office building, the power was cut to a single room when Senator Mark Warner started discussing Russian hacking of our systems as well. It could be a coincidence, unlikely though, the power was cut remotely and it took over an hour to get it reenergized. See: This is quite irregular coinciding with so much else that is bizarre in the states right now, so be on the lookout for further explanation in the days to come. It's too strange to be a fluke that they happen the day after a Russian dossier dropped. At this hour these events are still unexplained and this is nearly 24 hours after the event, in the District of Columbia, the city of the United States Federal Government. Jasonanaggie (talk) 09:17, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Er, okay, although this all seems a little close to paranoid conspiracy theorising. More importantly, as far as WP is concerned, regardless of what individual contributors believe, material needs authoritative sources to confirm its relevance and reliability. The NYT report about this, as noted, expressly says it is unlikely to be a deliberate hack of any sort, but a technical error. So it's not relevant to a "Criticism" of RT section nor should it be presented in such a way as to suggest it might be a hack. Finally, as also noted, the page doesn't need any more random images dumped in it. N-HH talk/edits 09:48, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Milosevic Trial[edit]

Please stop your obsession with adding your own interpretation of what the ICTY judgment means, and changing the facts, wikipedia is about presenting facts and not your personal interpretation board. If you revert again, I will go a relevant noticeboard about this, as I have done before. 12:07, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Er, OK. As anyone with basic powers of comprehension can see, you're the one interpreting the judgment and declaring their own "facts". Pithily throwing my own words back at me won't add much to anyone else's impression of what is going on here either. Anyway, at 3RR now. N-HH talk/edits 12:18, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
You have been served! [1]. JamesJohnson2 (talk) 16:15, 05 January 2017 (UTC)
So I have, in a retaliatory posting, albeit not that successfully. Anyway, when you come back from your block I'd suggest you read up on WP sourcing rules (especially how to deal with primary sources and opinion pieces) and refrain from repeatedly claiming other editors are paid shills just because they happen to disagree with you. Especially the one who was actually more sympathetic than most were to including the material in question (so long as it was represented accurately, which is – fairly obviously I would have thought, if you compare the wordings in question – all I was trying to do before you went off on one). You could also read more widely into the difference between what is an uncontroversial "fact" and what is merely interpretation or opinion. N-HH talk/edits 17:24, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

"Irish slaves"[edit]

The link to Global Research is in a link 'under' the phrase "popular online essay" and, of course, in my citation from there: your reversion. Swliv (talk) 23:47, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Apologies for being a bit trigger-happy then, but that is quite well buried by the Times; plus that page, unsurprisingly perhaps, has a history of things being flung at it which don't really stick (as well as things that do). That said, I'm not sure adding the same boilerplate text to the page of outlets mentioned by the Times as having published dodgy/controversial material on the topic is the best thing. There are other sources that also suggest GlobalResearch may have been the main site that helped popularise the idea online, which may be worth mentioning a bit more explicitly. N-HH talk/edits 09:52, 18 March 2017 (UTC)


Your userpage comments looks a lot like a pre-emptive accusation of bad faith against those who might engage you in a content dispute. Factchecker_atyourservice 16:53, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Not without good reason, in this case as in many others. Please comment on the substance of the issue at hand at the article page, where I have started a thread. N-HH talk/edits 16:55, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
I am quite sure you feel that the statement is justified—just letting you know how it is likely to be perceived by other editors, especially if one dares to disagree with you. Factchecker_atyourservice 17:12, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
It's not controversial that there are politically motivated and crap contributors here with a lot of energy and time to spend pushing their preferred lines. Pointing that out is not my assuming bad faith on the part of everyone I might disagree with, or suggesting that every disagreement is a result of that, and it's a rather obvious logical fail to suggest that it is. But equally, if the cap fits I'm happy for people to wear it. I might add, since you raised the theme, that calling yourself "Factchecker" might be seen by some as an attempt to pre-empt anyone who disagrees with you. No more posts/responses please btw, thanks. N-HH talk/edits 17:20, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
So it turns out that your essay is actually a promise to dish personal attacks and insults immediately upon getting flustered by a content dispute. You really should just remove the essay and implement a wholesale change of your conduct. Factchecker_atyourservice 17:56, 26 March 2017 (UTC)