User talk:N-HH

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User talk:Nickhh)
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.

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, N-HH. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Personal attacks[edit]

I'd like to respond substantively to your comments here, but best I can tell you personally attacked me by calling me a "credulous and biased idiot with page ownership issues." I understand your argument there, but could you please strike that language and perhaps replace it would a more constructive analogy? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Sigh. That comment was not addressed at you, nor do you have any reason to think so other than another user's random assertion that it was. It was in fact a generic "you", and the whole point was to offer up an exaggerated claim about a hypothetical "you" in order to debunk the bizarre and fallacious argument, being deployed on that page by another editor, that the existence of such a claim automatically proves the worthlessness of any attempted refutation of the claim. Thanks. N-HH talk/edits 21:13, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Well it reads as a personal attack on me, even if you didn't intend it that way. You could replace it with any number of exaggerated claims that didn't purport to criticize your fellow editors. Please do so. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:17, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Your advice is, as they say, noted, although I have absolutely no idea why you're saying it reads as if it was directed at you. Anyway I'm not going near that page any more as it has serious ownership and bias issues (which is why that phrasing came to mind to use in the example) and it's waste of time getting involved. The one or two actual edits I've made to the page itself have been more or less entirely reverted by our mutual friend – who happily insists by contrast that all their preferred edits are indispensable, and who has almost certainly been on WP longer than you seem to be assuming from your conversation with them, albeit with a different account – and then you [sic] just get bogged down in pointless circular debate on talk, as ever. Conversation closed here too, for similar reasons. N-HH talk/edits 21:24, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

"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)