Jump to content

User talk:N-HH/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

The town where Sparta was

Is there any example you know of an obsure modern town where a famous place once stood? I checked but can't find a town where Sparta or Troy stood that goes by a different name. I think it would be helpful if we could find an "Obscuropolos" that stands where "Famousburg" once stood. This would also skew Google book results in the same way and serve as a useful analogy. Chrisrus (talk) 15:43, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

The problem with Sparta or Troy, as you've found, is that there's probably no continuity with any modern settlement or area, which is what is needed. If any city or defined area lacks a direct connection with the old one, we'd always just have two separate articles and names anyway. However, we do have a switch of name for a continuous entity, as highlighted elsewhere, with Gdansk (modern Polish name for the city, and universally accepted as the English-language standard today for contemporary references) vs Danzig (old German name - and also a common name in other contexts, eg Glenn Danzig and his eponymous band) and Didymoteicho (modern Greek name for a city in Thrace on the Greek-Turkish border) vs Dimetoka/Demotika (old Ottoman and pre-Ottoman name). In simple unfiltered google.co.uk book searches, Danzig beats Gdansk by 5.32 million to 1.96 million. Dimetoka alone has 11,000 results (Demotika has 15,100) compared to Didymoteicho's 614. The latter in particular is skewed because it seems to have been a major town in Byzantine and Ottoman times under its old name - several emperors and one sultan were born there, a major battle was fought nearby and it was briefly even capital of the Ottoman empire, apparently. It's almost the perfect counter-example - but I raised it and got accused of being racist, while people simply have refused to engage with the point, perhaps unsurprisingly because of what an honest answer might say. Maybe someone's answered the point better now, but I can't face looking at the moment.
Looking for islands, a quick look around here also reveals Sazan Island, now part of Albania and hence filed here under its modern Albanian name. However, its Italian name Saseno yields 4,260 Google Book hits against only 1,340 for the modern name. I guess the Bulgarian, Albanian and (FYROM) Macedonian border areas might yield further examples in respect of Greece, but naturally I really don't recommend going to the last one! If you wanted less explosive ones (in this immediate context at least), again I guess Poland-Germany or former Austria-Hungarian lands in central Europe might offer some prospects. There must be other islands, in the western and central Med as well. To be honest though, I'd have said the examples above all more than prove the point - which should be a given anyway - that we don't rely on Google Book search numbers for this kind of thing. Anyway, now for some raki, oddly enough, and to enjoy the rest of my Saturday ... N-HH talk/edits 16:38, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited A Prayer for the Dying, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page IRA (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Re: Tenedos debates

N-HH, you are an experienced editor and your contributions are valued. But there is a point where sometimes editors need to be reminded of the lessons in this essay: WP:DEADHORSE. There is no doubt that every editor who has participated in the Tenedos discussions, including the RM and Move Review knows what your position is. Essentially telling every other editor who participates in the discussion who has an opinion counter to yours, that they are wrong and you are right is counterproductive, and contributes little to the resolution of the discussion. More importantly, it contributes little to and even detracts from your personal credibility in the discussion. State your position, let it stand on its merits, and let others do the same. Thanks --Mike Cline (talk) 15:25, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't give a shit. Don't link to stupid essays on my page and don't patronise me about being valued and experienced. I have to repeat myself because some people really don't seem to get even the simplest point, and others then come in to say "well, they may be wrong, but let's allow their opinion to count". I don't get stuck into these things just for fun you know, I do it because some people need some fucking sense knocked into them. And why don't you go and tell everyone else involved - many of whom have posted just as much as I have - to stop claiming that books about the Trojan War count for anything in this context rather than coming here to tell me to stop pointing out to them that they don't. Sorry, this place is, as noted, a joke. When you give equal billing to fuckwits and those with closed minds, you're going to get a decision that says "there's no consensus to declare the earth round, so we shan't". Good luck with that. I've seen these things finally done properly once and for all - eg with Taiwan - and I've seen them done ineptly and casually and with undue deference to the bleatings of an invested few, where we end up with neither stability or accuracy. Like here. N-HH talk/edits 15:45, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
I hope that rant made you feel better, and I hope you continue on the fight! Please don't tire, you are the most authoritative voice in the name dispute. Eventually, the evidence will win out.134.173.30.249 (talk) 22:23, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, there were several sane people there besides me - the only problem is that it only takes two or three others to wield the veto and after reams of circular debate we have "no consensus" and we're stuck. A quick rant makes me feel less frustrated briefly, but it doesn't change that underlying problem, re Tenedos and 1001 other things here. It's dysfunctional. Most decent and serious publishers would take two seconds on this sort of decision and come to what was more or less objectively the "right" decision on such a relatively simple and clear issue, where the evidence is all one way. Wikipedia takes hours, goes through various endless and convoluted discussion formats, and comes to the "wrong" decision. That takes some genius. N-HH talk/edits 08:18, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Have a coffee!

You deserved it
Too little for all your efforts on the Bozcaada naming dispute, but very well deserved. Thank you very much for trying hard to make WP a better encyclopedia. E4024 (talk) 15:43, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Ta. There'll be five more debates and RMs on it in the coming years, all probably taking just as much time and space each time, and eventually common sense will prevail. Once it gets to the modern current name, no one's going to get far suggesting it should go back the other way. This kind of thing shouldn't even need one such debate, of any length, but we'll end up having had about 11 in all - at which point I can point out that if people had listened to the arguments properly this time round, not only would we have got to the right answer more quickly, we'd save ourselves all the time and effort that's now yet to come as well. N-HH talk/edits 15:58, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
ps: is the name for that coffee pic right? Greek and Arab editors might have something to say .. N-HH talk/edits 15:58, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
I was afraid to name the coffee; I just copied the file... :-) Sit back and enjoy it. --E4024 (talk) 16:03, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

favor solicited

I lost the link to the photos from the Atlases at the library. Chrisrus (talk) 18:35, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

This one? User:E4024 linked to it in a (collapsed for some reason) discussion that's now in the Tenedos talk archives, although I think it was User:AbstractIllusions who put it together originally. N-HH talk/edits 19:59, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Exactly. I am too lazy to make a photo album myself. Thanks Abstract... --E4024 (talk) 20:08, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

You're quoted at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking

Hello, N-HH. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

There's (yet another) discussion about linking, and I cited your comments in my response. --Chaswmsday (talk) 10:19, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

over/underlinking

Could you take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Linking#What_generally_should_not_be_linked_can_we_bring_this_to_closure

The "one link" rule/enforcement has gotten out of hand, I'm trying to get something closer to rationality. I need any refinements to the proposal, and your support. ThanksBoundlessly (talk) 21:27, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Taiwan edit discussion

Hi N-HH, I've posted a discussion on Talk:Taiwan related to your comment of my edit. Mistakefinder (talk) 07:14, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello, N-HH. You have new messages at Talk:Taiwan#"Mainland".
Message added 20:02, 10 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I'm not quite sure what your point is there or what your purpose is in notifying me about it. (No further elaboration necessary btw). N-HH talk/edits 16:57, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Apologies for getting you into this, and it's certainly understandable if you'd rather stay out of it, but I would appreciate a quick clarification at Talk:United States beef imports in Taiwan#Re.: The title. Thanks. wctaiwan (talk) 00:51, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
No worries, and indeed I won't comment there. But I will simply say here that I was very definitely not referring to you at Talk:Taiwan when I complained about the c.50% poor English-language contributions (and thanks for your comments there as well btw). As for the title of the page now in question, I would agree that the addition of "and bovine" to the title, while possibly technically correct and more detailed, sounds a little over-detailed and ponderous. And, as a final and general point, often of course good language skills are better evidenced by concision, staying on-point and clarity of expression; something KC9TV might care to think about. N-HH talk/edits 09:58, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the reply. wctaiwan (talk) 12:23, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement

There is new thread on arbitration enforcement forum that might be interesting to you - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#DIREKTOR Nemambrata (talk) 13:39, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I've found the editor in question problematic on the one occasion I've encountered them. I don't think they're either quite as NPOV or simply being faithful to the sources as they like to shout that they are, plus I found their attitude aimed at me of "you don't know what you're talking about" and "you're falling for a nationalist trick" etc both childish and inaccurate. They failed at that one page to address or answer any questions or offer any serious rational explanation for their positions, as if self-assertions of merely not being a nationalist are some kind of trump card. That said, I really don't want to pile in on a Balkans AE thread, where there's probably some fault at least on all sides, so probably won't comment there. N-HH talk/edits 11:54, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Needles and Pins (song), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Road to Ruin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Please stop with the personal attacks against me in your edit summaries

Your edit summaries accuse me of making things up out of thin air and saying in one such edit something along the lines of this being "not surprising", please stop doing this.--R-41 (talk) 01:56, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Unless you can show me the passages from the books you cited justifying the content, you did indeed make that content up out of thin air (not that I ever said precisely that until now anyway). Your doing that is far more of a problem for WP than my pointing it out. As for my "not surprising" comment, that referred to the fact that a decent book was unlikely to contain inaccurate information. Since you've come to my talk page to berate me, I will now be frankly blunt: much of what you add to WP pages on politics is random, badly written and outright inaccurate. You add a lot of content as well, so the problem is a big one (nor can you claim to be a naïve newbie). You appear to scout around Google Books, pulling out random points on topics where your overall understanding is pretty limited, rewriting them often quite poorly (or even creating a whole new point out of them) and shovelling them into pages totally out of context and without regard to any sense of due weight. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, as the cliché has it. The problem beyond that is you don't seem to realise how limited much of your knowledge actually is. And your latest reversion on the fascism page is a disgrace, seemingly born out of pique, that has reverted genuine improvements. For about two days we had a pretty well written, clear and encyclopedic introduction to fascism. You've wrecked it again. N-HH talk/edits 09:15, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm quitting Wikipedia today, oh but thank you for informing me that I "wrecked" the intro by reverting several changes you made and that my reverting to your changes to the intro are a "disgrace", that I write "poorly" - I have been regarded as a good writer by multiple university professors, and "outright inaccurate", why not call me a liar and a horrible person and be done with it. I am disgusted with your personal attacks, I could easily have reported your comments of saying that I "wrecked" the article and that my reverting your changes to the intro are a "disgrace". But I'm tired of it, do whatever you want to the intro.--R-41 (talk) 16:24, 26 February 2013
R-41, you must distinguish between writing an undergraduate paper, where one argues a position, and encyclopedic writing, where one must neutrally present how sources describe a subject. This is not the place to present original interpretations of fascism, which inevitably leads to conflict. One increases that conflict by impugning the motives of other editors. However, we have discussed this many times. TFD (talk) 18:11, 26 February 2013 (UTC)013 (UTC)
I apologise if I have upset you, but you came to my talk page to have a go at me and I responded – with fair warning – that I would be blunt in return. Your reaction also, I am afraid, rather vindicates my assertions about your having reverted out of pique. The problem in part is that the task of trying to correct much of the badly written, tangential and sloppy content here frustrating enough as it is without people just reverting it all back in without even bothering to justify what they are doing (or justifying it, as you did in this case, by claiming to be restoring information when you were in fact removing bucketloads of it, including some key, pretty basic points about fascism and its history that had finally been put into the lead the other day).
You also seem not to have noticed that most of the substantive changes and additions to the lead were made by another editor, not by me; I merely removed a couple of the dodgier claims that had been sitting there for a while now and did some basic, limited copyediting to the lead as a whole, including to the other editor's additions. You just then rowed in and went all the way back more or less to the previous version, which you had mostly written, without even responding in any serious way to the discussion raised on the talk page. As I suggest, others have more right to be frustrated than you do. N-HH talk/edits 20:00, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Am reporting myself for vulgar swearing at you requesting indefinate block for myself of ban, I am still extremely angry at you (only posting this here to inform you of this, delete it at your will)

Alright then N-HH, you've gone on to edit other things and won't answer this, to demonstrate to you the authenticity of my character and the authenticity that I am sincerely and extremely angry with what you have done here, I'll report myself for the uncivil vulgar swearing insults I made against you, say that I was and remain extremely angry at you as you are of me, and I will request the administrators that they should consider indefinately blocking me or banning me from Wikipedia, as I have grossly crossed the line. I hope you relish that I am intentionally self-destroying my account and further contributions here, because I know that you have a bloodthirsty urge for retribution against me.--R-41 (talk) 03:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm only posting this here to inform you that I am reporting myself, I know you will delete this afterwards.--R-41 (talk) 03:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

My self-report to the ANI for my vulgar swearing personal attacks against you

Here is the link if you wish to comment: [1]--R-41 (talk) 03:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

1971 Bangladesh atrocities

Our conversation is getting mixed in with votes, do you think a separate section for threaded discussion would be a good idea? We could move our comments to it so it will be easier for all concerned to follow it. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

In principle, that probably would be an idea, but I think I've probably said my piece there and made the basic point I want to make. As noted, I'm actually agnostic about the actual title, I just wish people would focus a bit more and comment, with evidence, on the basis of actual policy (they very rarely do in RM discussions, or in similar debates such as AFDs). It's not on my watchlist so I'll probably let the rest of the debate pass me by. N-HH talk/edits

Iraq War in Anbar Province

Thank you for your edits. Feel free to make any others to the wording if you think it's not WP:NPOV. As I said, I'm extremely biased on this material; even though I tried to be as neutral as possible, no one's perfect. Also, if you think there are some better sources out there then the ones I'm using, please let me know. Palm_Dogg (talk) 17:56, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Cheers. I don't really want to get stuck in to the article in much detail; it was just that first sentence, which struck me not as POV as such as simply primarily describing something from the one perspective when I saw it on the main page. As a more philosophical side-point, I suspect that anyone who can at least admit that they might have a bias is quite possibly likely to be able to edit more neutrally than many editors who loudly assert that they have no such biases. We're all pretty much stuck with our own perspectives on the world, whether we like to acknowledge it or not, after all. It's a question of how we work round them. N-HH talk/edits 11:39, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Soviet Union comments

Thank you for providing a reasoned analysis. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Possibly slightly overwrought though, in toto. I think I'll leave it there as well, since it's ultimately a fairly trivial point and I'm at risk of getting a little frustrated over it (not least because it's a rather good example of where those claiming that they have the "reliable sources" on their side – because they've quoted interpretations they agree with from a couple of books – and that everyone else is engaged in "original research" simply for exercising some judgment and open-mindedness on a talk page are probably, in fact, further adrift from the actual point of WP rules and of WP itself than everyone else). As ever, WP editing runs the risk of overcomplicating the simpler things and oversimplifying the more complex aspects. There's a middle ground somewhere between those two options, and it shouldn't require thousands of words on a talk page to get there ... N-HH talk/edits 15:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I am R-41, I proposed a simple resolution to the problem, I apologize for the abusive behaviour I've done, I will be back off Wikipedia again soon

First of all, I will apologize to you as I did to Writegeist, I have been a total ass to people including you, and I am not a good regular editor here, I get too frustrated when things don't go my way. However the back and forth crap on "it is socialist!" "no it is not socialist!" is not helping anyone on the Fascism article, it should focus on what the fascists actually promoted, not on everything they opposed - the laundry list of everything they opposed will go on forever.--184.145.67.28 (talk) 13:05, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

AN/I report

I have made a report to the AN/I over your automatic assumption of bad faith on my part. See here: [2]--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)

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: [3], 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)
So conveniently everything is my fault, correct, you believe you have no faults in this? That you are innocent? 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)
I have filed a report on this matter at SPI.[4] TFD (talk) 20:46, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Conc. Not signing in (and Nazism). If this is done deliberate, and is an attempt of supporting "yourself", then this clearly is not good. However I have noticed that after editing at other Wikipedias, that even if the auto-login option is marked, it may not work. (And if the article isn't semi-protected, it is possible to be disconnected - and not notice it. This has happened to me at several occations. I'm trying to be careful about this, but it may still happen. One must assume innocence until proven otherwise. I also want to ask user N-HH to take concideration of what I've written at talk page of "Nazism". (It's atleast European mainstream to differ fascism from nazism). Best reg. Boeing720 (talk) 12:37, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
I can barely understand what you are saying or what you are trying to refer to. It also appears you barely understand the topics you are discussing, at least when they are discussed in English. And, on that point, "clunky" is a perfectly good slang English word (plus I'd generally advise against telling native speakers of a language that they are the ones who are getting words confused). N-HH talk/edits 21:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

English people

N-HH

I have read the above. I hope you don't start using "good faith" or "bad faith" with me. I am interested in a quality and factual entry on English Ethnicity. See my comments on the section's Talk before reverting any more of my stuff. I can source the lot but let's take it one bit at a time. The first para should stand alone and not be mixed up with the doubts of very few "historians". Also. ethnicity is about identity as much as history and science. Happy to discuss. Not a question of faith either way.

217.79.99.42 (talk) 00:00, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The above is neither here nor there to this question. Anyway, I have responded on the relevant page. More than happy to work through any proposed changes or additions; as noted, both the section and the whole page need something done. I would also offer you a welcome and pointers to WP policy and guideline pages, but I'd guess you've edited here before? N-HH talk/edits 09:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

RfC re WP:LQ: various irregularities

N-HH, to put it bluntly, this whole RfC has been more than a bit irregular from the start, with a staunch defender of the status quo initiating an RfC that was inaccurate and non-neutral -- in what might be fairly interpreted as an obvious attempt to preempt an RfC by proponents of change. I am not yet willing to accuse anyone of "bad faith," but let's just say that the original RfC was "ill-considered." Hopefully, everyone can live with the obvious imperfections in process and we can go forward with the present vehicle. If not, starting over with an unbiased, neutrally-worded and accurate RfC would not be a tragedy. That having been said, I see no evidence in the 30+ comments that anyone was confused or misled, so maybe the imperfections and corrections can be accepted and we can move on with the normal commenting and !voting process. Let me know your thoughts. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:23, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree it might not have made or make any difference to the way people line up, but it's obviously the principle of the thing; just as, for example, it's not impropriety or a conflict of interest itself that has to be proven to scupper a process, but merely the appearance or possibility of it. That said, we're not in a real court of law, and it was probably a little OTT of me to suggest such changes might be fatal to the process here.
As for the issue and discussion itself, I'm probably done with it, having more than had my say on what is, after all, a pretty marginal issue both in reality and in the eyes probably of most readers and even editors (as it happens I'd favour another option altogether, but let's not go there). More broadly, much as I'm in favour of consistency in principle, I've always been wary of an MOS in such a sprawling project which is simultaneously too introspective, complicated and assertive: as someone has recently commented, the role of the MOS should be to support content contributors in reasonable choices they are likely to make, not to dictate to and corral them. N-HH talk/edits 21:15, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Roger that, on all points. MOS serves very valid purposes in promoting best practices and consistency where appropriate. I am less certain of some editors' stated goal of creating a truly stand-alone style guide akin to The Chicago Manual of Style, the AP Style Book or New Hart's Rules. I take issue when MOS proponents try to create new rules from whole cloth, or when a small group attempts to impose a minority practice because, in their opinion, such practice is better than the majority practice (or practices) used in the real world. For me, the universal imposition of logical quotation on national varieties of English in which its use is rare is one of those occasions. I think this "choice" was one that evolved from a mentality that you describe above as one "which is simultaneously too introspective, complicated and assertive." When one is writing one's own rules, and choosing to ignore the mainstream practices of 100+ years standing shared by the real world majority, perhaps a humility check is in order. That's my reaction, anyway.
Thanks for all your comments and help in this matter, and for keeping Darkfrog and myself honest. I believe your perspective was one we needed to hear, and as a result, the compromise Option B has some chance of success. I hope we have the opportunity to work together again on something in the near future. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:47, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Champagne, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Samuel Butler (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:05, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Please support this edit.

Please support at least the substance of this edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)&diff=567350564&oldid=566981906 Chrisrus (talk) 03:28, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Fascism

The definition of fascism is out of keeping with existing norms in encyclopedias.

It is always defined as "rightwing."

It is also not a form of nationalism. Even the two citations justifying defining it as "nationalism" do not say that. They say it espouses nationalism. Very different from essentially being nationalism (and nothing else).

All existing encyclopedias define it as "rightwing political movement that was authoritarian, nationalist, xenophobic, etc."

The idea of nationalism can be retained but the essence of fascism is something else--a rightwing political movement that used state terror to impose rightwing values on a community.

Mryan1451 (talk) 12:14, 14 August 2013 (UTC)mryan1451

Actually, it is not always defined as rightwing, although I would agree it usually is (and the lead did cover this point, prior to your recent addition – please read to the last paragraph). The distinction between describing fascism as either "a form of nationalism", "espousing nationalism" and "nationalist" is for the most part trivial semantics. Finally, as someone else I think has pointed out, this conversation should be happening at Talk:Fascism, not on an individual user talk page; let along five or six of them simultaneously. N-HH talk/edits 12:54, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Fascism Talk". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Cabe6403(Talk•Sign) 09:41, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Fascism etiquette

Hi, Thanks. I've been trying to get this page corrected for several years now, so I am not acting in haste. I'm acting because my previous efforts have all been frustrated. I first edited it two or three years ago when I assigned it to my students and noticed it was inaccurate and propagandistic. Most of the propaganda is gone, but some remains. The fact that you've had a long discussion over whether or not to include the standard definition of F as "a rightwing political movement and form of social organization" suggests that is an unresolved issue that requires mediation. All I've done so far is request a third party opinion, a first step in dispute resolution. I'm happy to continue discussing on the Article Talk page. I have proposed a revision of the first section of the entry. Why don't you suggest ways to improve what I've written? The sense I got from the first replies was that one person felt further work was needed on the entry but two were opposed. If you come in now and work on the revision, perhaps we can move ahead and avoid formal mediation. Mryan1451 (talk) 12:17, 16 August 2013 (UTC)mryan1451

ANI notice

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

Whilst I did not contact you initially as you did not make a major comment at Talk:United Kingdom#Units of measure dispute., I have been accused of selectively selecting editors to notify so I am contacting everyone who took part. The discussion is WP:ANI#User:Martinvl and long term disruption of WT:MOSNUM. Apologies in advance, if like me you don't really have a strong opinion on the matter. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:10, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I've made mention of your name at that AN/I in a run-down of Martinvl's actions at the UK article talk page so if you wish tp leave a comment then please do so. Mabuska (talk) 13:59, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

November 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Champagne may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • a mould of [[Marie Antoinette]]'s left breast as a birthday present to her husband, [[Louis XVI]]) – tends to disperse the nose and over-oxygenate the wine. Champagne is always served cold, its

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:16, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Nazism

The DAP was changed to the NSDAP before Hitler became the leader of it, would it not be more accurate to change:

now renamed the National Socialist German Workers’ Party in a bid to broaden its appeal.

By the early 1920s, Adolf Hitler had become its leader and assumed control of the organisation

It needs changing as its not correct to put the changing after Hitler had became the leader of it, it was changed before he became the chairman of the DAP.--Windows66 (talk) 18:53, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Please discuss this on the talk page for the article, not here. And I copyedited clumsy phrasing like "a unification of all Germans united in a Greater Germany" and you've just gone and put it back in. N-HH talk/edits 19:10, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
You did a good job editing the OK Computer entry. I attempted to edit the critical review portion of it. I see you changed it, but I respect you for editing it how you felt it should be. Kind regards. Kingslove2013 (talk) 00:22, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

109.150.23.189

Hi. I've become interested in a bunch of IPs, making many edits in similar styles on pages mostly related to independent TV in the UK, and also some on each other's talk pages. I'm not saying they're doing anything wrong, just that these edits have grabbed my attention and when I have more time I may take a closer look.

I noticed while clicking around a message you left on User Talk:109.150.23.189 in October, about an issue on Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive. I can't locate that issue (unsure how to look for it).

Do you remember what this was about? Or can you point me to the issue?

Many thanks. Nick Levine (talk) 19:05, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Here's a link to the archived discussion. The things I'd spotted were more about music pages, but it seems it may be all part of the same problem. N-HH talk/edits 11:35, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year N-HH!

Happy New Year!
Hello N-HH:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Frze > talk 20:34, 1 January 2014 (UTC)



Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2014}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

France

That was my fault. I checked and reverted the last revision, from looking at the diff on my watchlist; and forgot to check for previous revisions by Sven.devarennes, so to other editors, it probably looked like I had checked them all. Apologies, Rob (talk | contribs) 22:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Soviet Union

Nug and Vercrumba are renewing antics over the Baltics after I reformatted the infobox to use the existant parameters.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:53, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Weirdly, I was just writing something there when this arrived. I have added something, but it seems we are going round in circles. The two of them are editors with, shall we say, a specific focus on Baltic-Soviet issues with a clear agenda to promote as opposed to wanting to write a clear and generalist encyclopedia entry. Unfortunately, in this context, they can deploy the fallacy that arcane pettifoggery must be superior to generalist description and hence bog people down in argument that may strike some as somewhat plausible. The reality is that the solutions I've proposed, based on using broader terminology, meet their fundamental objections; but because they don't flag up the explicit political statement they want to blare out from the page under that legalistic veneer they won't countenance them. N-HH (talk) 10:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Not sure about this.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, that's not wholly inaccurate and at least it acknowledges that they were Soviet republics. If another editor had made that change, I'd be less sceptical about it. The problem is, as noted above, is that Nug is virtually an SPA. It's this kind of single-focus mission-editing and the interminable petty debate such editors provoke about matters that should actually be quite simple for the genuinely disinterested that have really drained me of most of my enthusiasm for contributing here unfortunately and I'm not sure how much I want to get dragged into all this. N-HH (talk) 10:12, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
We have like a billion diffs to show how problematic he is. RFCU, ANI, RFAR, etc.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Great demonstration of canvassing for support and battleground mentality Ryulong, thanks for that. --Nug (talk) 11:39, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
N-HH participated in the debate in the past. It's his right to know that it's continuing.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
N-HH, I'm disappointed in your apparent distrusting attitude.There is no agenda being promoted beyond representing what reliable sources write with due weight and neutrality. "Generalist description" doesn't mean dumbing down articles to fit with what editors think people should WP:KNOW or synthesising some "neutral viewpoint". I just don't get the need to treat the Baltic states absolutely equally when the real world reality indicates otherwise. From how they were incorporated to how the were restored, to financial aspects like repudiating soviet era debts and recovering pre-1940 assets, to international relations like NATO and EU membership, to social aspects like thousands of "non-citizens", so on and so forth, the three Baltics states are acknowledged as being different in every way except by some Wikipedia editors. At present there is a weird disconnect. Precisely what evil agenda is being fulfilled in differentiating them in a succinct manner in the infobox, apart from matching people's experience of the real world with reflecting what reliable sources tell us? --Nug (talk) 11:39, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
This is a free to access encyclopedia for everyone. As someone who did not know much about the nature of the Baltics' incorporation into the USSR, I found it odd when I came upon the article last year that they were omitted because you, Nug, have been demanding specific treatment for them. According to you, if they're to be included, they must be listed separately, and if they aren't being treated differently than the others, then they shouldn't be listed at all. We're talking about the content found at the bottom of an infobox, which is more than half of the way down on the page already. Anything that needs to be said about the unique history should be done in prose. It does not have to be shoehorned into the infobox because of your insistence that because the Soviet occupation was illegal these three should be treated differently.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
As to general behaviour and motivation, I can only go on what I see and what I can infer from that Nug. Others can no doubt do the same. As for the issue at hand, as you surely know, I have never demanded that there is no differentiation at all in the infobox; equally, I have been very clear that the complexity and underlying issues need to be addressed in the main text. You have, however, regularly simply removed the Baltic states outright from the infobox. You have also, alternately, insisted that, if they are to stay, one and only one set of rigid and specific terminologies be applied, when real world sources do not have that uniformity (nor, btw, do those sources assert that the Baltics are "different in every way"). In this kind of blurred situation, seizing on the terminology and interpretation used in some specific sources and insisting that only that can apply, seemingly in order simply to make a huge song and dance about the illegality of their incorporation into the USSR, is as contrary to WP policy and good practice as inventing things out of the blue without reference to any sources at all. In fact, it's worse, as it allows people to bang on misleadingly while pretending they're the only ones doing it right and everyone else – even if relying on equally serious sources – is "dumbing down". N-HH (talk) 12:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
ps: I don't want to continue this discussion here. N-HH (talk) 12:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Can I ask you what you think of this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bevo74#Can_I_run_this_by_you.3F_.28a_new_intro_for_Welsh_People.29

Just the attempted new introduction really, for Welsh People. You could comment here or on my talk if you wish to.

I'm trying to do it off the discussion page at the moment, and am looking for feedback. We just need something fair and balanced, and I personally feel the term "ethnic group" effectively excludes me from the article. Even in this new sense of the word, when used in this context it combats the concept of British Welsh - which most people in Wales would actually say they are if asked. In reality, there are a more than one ethnic group in Wales - though I really don't see what's wrong with just using the term "people". We do currently have 'overkill', and it's not a good look. People from Anglesey are actually very different to people from Cardiff: there's two 'ethnic groups' right there. The large island of Anglesey could almost be the independent Wales a number of people on Wikipedia want to see. The capital though? Not even slightly. And of course, once upon a time the 'ethnic population' of the UK were racially non-Caucasian of course - I don't think we can easily get rid of the 'genetically different' connotation there. I'm wondering if this new rather-different use isn't coming more from America? Actually, I'll ask you that on the discussion page. Thanks. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:14, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Jews and Communism re-nominated for deletion

Since you contributed to or were otherwise involved in the original afD nomination, you may or may not wish to comment on the new afD nomination, found here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jews and Communism (2nd nomination) I intend on leaving this note to everyone who edited the first AFD and has not yet contributed to the new discussion. Thanks! :) Flipandflopped (Discuss, Contribs) 16:59, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Hey

I noticed you had cleared your talk page, and I wanted to say, since it appears you might be leaving, take some time off away from this place and if you feel like coming back, fantastic. I have noticed your editing throughout different aspects of Wikipedia and you do good work, so it would be terribly wrong for Wikipedia to lose an editor of your quality. Just thought I would give my 2 cents. Take care. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:15, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Cheers. I do try, but as I've been aware for a long time, the effort-to-achievement ratio involved in trying to make even the most minor and commonsense improvement or adjustment here is often so lopsided that I really not sure I can be bothered anymore. It's of no benefit to me and limited benefit to overall actual page content, even when you do get some changes to stick, especially given that I don't generally do much more than minor copyediting/expansion and crap-content deletion anyway. Those who are convinced that pages have to reflect how they see the world rather than how the world sees the topic in question, and are determined to battle on with that regardless of the evidence and of WP rules, are always going to win out regardless, especially when forums such as ANI and ArbCom – which I've always tried to avoid anyway – as often as not end up effectively validating such behaviour, even when you've spent a lot of time doing all you can to present the actual nature of the problem at hand. I have to know how to research and write and to present information objectively in my professional life – why volunteer time here for nothing trying to do that simply to end up in futile conflict with the 50% of contributors who don't know how to do those things? Good luck with keeping an eye on the occasional additions of our mutual friend. N-HH talk/edits 08:41, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

ANI

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. If you are still around, your comments are humbly requested at WP:AN/I#POV editors on Anarcho-capitalism— MisterDub (talk | contribs) 14:11, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

As above, I'm done here I'm afraid (and should have given up a long time ago really). I would briefly add something at ANI but once you start again it's too easy to get sucked into more pointless back and forth with people who are either too thick to understand anything or simply have an agenda that they're not going to resile from. Also, there's the point, referred to above and pretty much proven again by the thread you've opened, that ANI and related processes just do not work for anything other than the most egregious problems. Admins usually just make a cursory review and unless they can see an obvious breach of rules will just mark them down as a "content dispute" – perhaps not unreasonably, since they're just contributors like everyone else who happen to have extra housekeeping functions; they don't run the site as such of course, but nevertheless. Even if they get involved, they'll absurdly suggest that both "sides" are as responsible as each other, thinking this means they're being even-handed. It sometimes takes a little more investigation to see through and actually deal with the behaviour of people who persistently push an agenda, or who display their own ignorance of the real-world mainstream or of what an encyclopedia is meant to be, but know how to stay just inside the rulebook here as technically and superficially applied. Good luck though .. N-HH talk/edits 09:43, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Straw Poll

There is a straw poll that may interest you regarding the proper use of "Religion =" in infoboxes of atheists.

The straw poll is at Template talk:Infobox person#Straw poll.

--Guy Macon (talk) 09:28, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Topic ban for Martin Hogbin

N-HH, there is now a move at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Proposed_topic_ban_of_Martin_Hogbin. You do not need to become heavily involved but could you just point out that I am not a lone crazy editor but one of a group who disgree with the current content and that I have now proposed a compromise solution. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your support at the proposed topic ban. As Arbcom have not understood the question I have, like you seem to have done, lost all faith in WP and I will be greatly reducing my editing. It was an interesting social experiment. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:12, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Relax duplicate linking rule (again!)

Hi there! I see you're suffering from some Wiki-burnout, but you might still be interested to see that I'm reopening the issue of duplicate links at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Linking#Relax_duplicate_linking_rule. --Slashme (talk) 21:34, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Infobox England region

Just to let you know, Template:Infobox England region has been nominated for deletion again here. Regards, Rob984 (talk) 20:13, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Oriya->Odia

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Oriya_language#Requested_move_17_June_2015. Thanks. Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 21:32, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Mussolini

Hallo N-HH, if you have time and lust, you can join the discussion at Talk:Benito_Mussolini#Founder_of_Fascism.3F. Thanks, Alex2006 (talk) 11:54, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

As you were involved in the earlier AfD

Sending this to all active editors who were involved in that AfD, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siege of Kapisa (2nd nomination). Doug Weller (talk) 11:41, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Jeremy Corbyn

Hi N-HH: with ref to Corbyn - I saw your intervention following my (corr. Chair - official title (& Proper noun, when phrased in full, ie. Chair of the Stop the War Coalition. Not a chair to sit on... (also NATO) etc...)) - preference for the title Chair I understand, but as to why it should be spelled as chair perhaps you could elucidate? Many thanks. M Mabelina (talk) 08:50, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Right, first you have restored your entire edit, and returned clearly inappropriate/POV language re NATO and Lithuania and other style changes (such as "well-known" to "well known" when preceding a noun, pointlessly adding "HE" to the Lithuanian ambassador's name, refactoring stylings from a printed source etc). Suggesting that this is just about one minor capitalisation is mendacious and misleading. As for that capitalisation, prevalent real-world practice these days is to not capitalise job titles or posts, and WP follows that (see the relevant section of the MOS). Arguably, "chair of the Stop the War Coalition" could come under the full-title exemption, but to me it seems a job description, not a formal title for a high office of state, hence it would not.
More broadly, you seem to have a problem with understanding style issues, excessive linking, and deploying slanted language and phrasing on pages. Various guidelines and policies are there to help you with all those. Finally, if you're going to come to another user's talk page, please place new threads in a new section at the bottom of the page. N-HH talk/edits 10:00, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
your attitude is pretty disgraceful, particularly since you leave comments above without satisfactory reply and resort to foul language and abuse in what seems to be a bullying attempt to get your way. Perhaps you could attend to the points in question - I should much like to hear your answer. It beats me as to why you should be so hostile unless it is to divert attention (& cause conflict in so doing)?? M Mabelina (talk) 14:58, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
I answered your question within an hour, explicitly and in some detail, addressing not only the point about capitalising chair, but the other changes you made. You then kept reposting your question over and over, while complaining I hadn't responded. You're still telling me I haven't responded, even though this time you've actually posted (just about) in the right place, directly under that very response. If you don't understand why that behaviour might aggravate someone, you are a bigger idiot than you've already come across as. You also appear to not have a clue about common capitalisation standards. Now, do not post on my talk page again, even in the right place and even if you have something new to say. I am no longer interested and will delete it without even reading it. If you persist, I will, reluctantly, go to ANI. Thank you. N-HH talk/edits 15:06, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
A friendly heads-up -- you've now reverted twice in <24 hours. I agree with your edit, but even so I'd suggest you self-revert. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:10, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
My reading of the note at the top of the page says the limit only applies to file/image-related edits (due to the debate over the photo). Even if it doesn't, thanks for the warning, but I'm not fussed tbh. This user makes lots of useless and confused edits, and reverting them when spotted is sensible even when it is against the rules. N-HH talk/edits 10:13, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
I certainly agree re the edits. As for the restriction, it started out as applying to the image only, but it was then broadened... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:24, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Ah, OK, the note at the top of the talk page is broader than the one that pops up when you edit, which isn't very helpful. I'll stick with what it says when you actually edit. If an admin changes that, I'll revert. N-HH talk/edits 10:39, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:N-HH/Archive_6&oldid=1136160731"