User talk:HiLo48

Welcome!

Hello, HiLo48, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! -- Longhair\^talk 07:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

--Bduke (Discussion) 09:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Characterise

So I thought it was weird that you changed "characterize" to "characterise" in the St. Patrick's Day article, since it seemed so wrong to me. I looked it up and it turns out "characterise" is the British spelling and "characterize" is the American spelling, so they are both correct. Who woulda thunk? Anyway, I don't really care whether it's spelled British or American, so I left it as "characterise" but I just thought I'd tell you about my adventure in spelling differences. Have fun! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maurajbo (talk • contribs) 13:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Further

Further to my response at my talk page I note that both Longhair and Brian have come to your page to welcome you. Both are great participants here and you have some fundamental links to get you started in terms of understanding. If you need more help please ask at any time.--VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 07:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

David Hodgett

Well, the disambiguation page does say that "registrar" is a keeper of records, and that's about as much as I know. The page was created as part of a sweep to have articles for all current Australian politicians, and my source was the Victorian Parliament's member bio. It says that he worked as a registrar for various immigration authorities, and when I created the article I was unsure as to which would best suit, so I left it as the link to the disambig. I agree this isn't ideal, but it's the best I could come up with, not being overly familiar with immigration procedures. Frickeg (talk) 22:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Reviewer and rollback

Hi, I've added a couple of flags to your account: reviewer and rollback. I hope you find them useful. Let me know if you have any questions. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:07, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

For keeping the baddies at bay...

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Thanks for keeping an eye out for damaging edits. bodnotbod (talk) 10:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to move this barnstar to wherever in your user space you'd prefer to have it. bodnotbod (talk) 10:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Humor at Protected Pages

As someone who lives on an island (granted its a VERY large island) perhaps you are unaware of what the rules are on the Mainland (thats what we call it) for articles that may be considered political in nature;

1. Any cross-party hugfest can only be initiated by the right,
2. Any internal hugfest (or support of one another) within the right should NOT be constued as anything more than friendliness and cheerful banter,
3. Any internal hugfest (or support of one another) within the left could, should and will result in immediate blocks and bans to the active participants and severe reprimands to any editors that were seen smiling in the general vicinity.

These are just some basic guidelines to assure the safety and sanity of your fellow editors. A good rule of thumb to follow is that if the right is obviously humorous 3 times in a row, some humor from the left will be tolerated since the conversation will be ended via "shrink wrap" at any moment. BTW, sorry about the spelling of humour. Buster Seven Talk 20:25, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for information

Hello HiLo48, This lousy t-shirt has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Compliments on your sang froid

I can't help but admire your reaction the other day to the namecalling you were subjected to by Encyclopedia91. You must have the patience and forbearance of a saint! I know I would have reacted quite differently. You are a model for us all. Sincerely, --Kenatipo ^speak! 21:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Nice Koekjes

Buster7 has given you a Nice Koekjes which promote fellowship, goodwill and WikiLove. Hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the good flavor of Nice Koekjes around Wiki World by giving someone else one. Maybe to a friend or, better yet, to someone you have had disagreements with in the past. Nice Biscuits are very tasty and have been known to calm even the most savage beast. Enjoy! Buster Seven Talk

I just gave a koekje to an Aussie friend, User:Alastair Haines and I thought of you. It's fresh. I made it last night. Buster Seven Talk 14:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Some words I'm working on

Been thinking about this criticism issue for a while. Probably not the ideal place to say this, but I want to try putting the words together. I think criticism sections are almost always going to be inappropriate in Wikipedia. Just about everyone has somebody who disagrees with them about something. Some, like outspoken atheists, will have more than many from conservative religious parts of society who disagree. That's a given. We cannot possibly list all the criticism, so what's the point of listing any? We should just describe what's significant about someone (i.e. why they have an article here) and let others decide on the merits of their actions and views. The same goes for people significant for their strong religious views. List those views, and let it stand. Going any further will inevitably create the debate of "how much further?" So, no criticism. OK?

I agree with you 90+%. Criticism sections are lazy writing, often places for sneaking in their point-of-view. They are often a way of taking an obscure critic and giving them promotion by adding their opinions. I often get the impression that some editors start with a point of view and then web search until they find some obscure opinion piece and add it to the article. In these cases, only reliable sources and notable ones will do. Instead of putting criticism in its own ghetto, if legit it belongs next to the ideas being presented. Thank you for bringing up an important issue. --Javaweb (talk) 00:10, 15 July 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

You two might want to check out Wikipedia:Criticism, an essay that discourages the existence of criticism sections and goes over the main points against them.AerobicFox (talk) 22:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

File:PNHP poster.jpg	For your great work at the Reference Desks
	Please accept this Physicians for a National Health Program poster for all the hard reference desks you answer. You're so often catching them faster than I can. Spectacular! Dualus (talk) 04:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I support you

You were right in the Pregnancy talk page. The image you wanted in the lead has a much more "medical", serious and informative tone than the one that the scores of probably American nipple-o-phobic prudes finally forced there. Actually, even from a purely aesthetic point of view the bare breasted image is superior because of the more "charming" expression of the woman in the picture, rather than the a bit like "whatcha lookin' at" expression of the Asian woman. --Cerlomin (talk) 22:01, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Australian National Flag Day

I think all the Flag of Australia article needs now is one more additional reference that 3 September has been proclaimed Australian National Flag Day or two. Then it will be just right.

58.164.34.60 (talk) 12:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC) —moved from your userpage. Jenks24 (talk) 12:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

For your sport work. :)

LauraHale (talk) 01:59, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much

Thanks for catching and reverting the Wobbly edit on the mother Teresa talkpage. I need to be more vigilant, actually I need more time to be more vigilant, oh stuff it, I need more time for RL! hehe, but in the meantime I need to be more careful of what I am doing with my browser windows. THANK YOU HiLo48 !!! Penyulap _talk 01:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Happy Australia Day! Thank you for contributing to Australian content!

	Australian Wikimedian Recognition (AWR)
	Thank you for your contributions on English Wikipedia that have helped improve Australian related content. :D It is very much appreciated. :D Enjoy your Australia Day and please continue your good work! LauraHale (talk) 02:46, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Scouting sex abuse cases?

Might I ask you (with all your badges!) to perhaps take another look at Scouting sex abuse cases? I can't seem to interest responsible editors in the issue of parity across abuse articles: the example I use, as it seems so egregious, is that any Catholic abuse case gets detailed coverage (often in more than one article), whereas a number of pro-scout editors systematically do what they can to play down any abuse case related to the scouts. This seems prima facie wrong.

I started the scouting abuse page - and was immediately called a WP:Troll for doing so. This was rapidly followed by several (perhaps organised, perhaps not) calls for the page to be deleted. The article has survived, but only barely: any old editing (so long as it is pro scout) passes. Another bunch of minimising edits have just been applied: their equivalents would be attacked by editors around the world if they were tried on, e.g., one of the Catholic abuse pages.

This is a disgrace but from past experience, I know I don't have the energy to take on the dib dib dob fraternity (indeed their behaviour drove me away from editing for a long time). I am writing in the hope you might know a forum for drawing attention to these asymmetries. Cordially. Testbed (talk) 17:05, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks for your interest (and apologies for any grumpiness on my part - if you read through the is-it-really-five-years history, you'll see why I am rather jaded - as I said before I have no line on scouting as such, it's parity across comparable articles which is the issue for me)

Most of those willing to edit this article seem to be actively involved in scouting (and indeed a lot of them give one another awards for great editing) - that is also a POV issue, if you'll allow me the comment. Again a comparison with the edit history of (just as one example ) Catholic sex abuse cases is instructive.

Testbed (talk) 11:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello sport loving Aussie ;)

I've nominated a few articles about members of the Australia women's national water polo team for Good Article. :) If you get a chance, can you do a grammar/spelling/general check on the articles? My prose can sometimes be… well… meh. Articles needing an edit so far include Bronwen Knox, Glencora Ralph, Victoria Brown (water polo), Zoe Arancini, Ashleigh Southern, Kelsey Wakefield. I'm thinking of possibly a good topic around this set. I'm working on a the rest of them. They all have information boxes. They include most of their important matches that have received significant press coverage, include their major water polo awards, and the important biographical background information. They also all have formatted information boxes and pictures. I think this would be harder to do AFTER the Olympics, so now is the best chance. :) (Conversely, if you would rather review any of these articles, that would be okay too. ) --LauraHale (talk) 11:54, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Metrication in the United Kingdom

Hi HiLo48

Would you please look at my page User:Martinvl/MitUK and review my comments in preparation for posting at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Assistance. Also, once posted, would you be good enough to certify DeFcto's behaviour.

Regards Martinvl (talk) 06:41, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Notification of DRN submission

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Metrication in the United Kingdom". Thank you. -- de Facto (talk). 19:43, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

ANI

There is a discussion on ANI about a topic you have been involved in relating to DeFacto. You are welcome to bring your experience to that discussion. Toddst1 (talk) 15:47, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Wonthaggi desalination plant

Thanks for the comments. I plan to do more in the future in the article to present a more neutral tone. There seems to be a lot of innovative technical information about the plant and how it is being designed to fit in with the local ecology. I've spent some time in Australia: 2 months in the Brisbane area and a week in Perth. It's a beautiful country.

As for use of the term "international units", I agree that the metric system is more prevalent than the English system. However, there is still a large portion of our Wikipedia readers who don't understand them, and, since the goal of Wikipedia is to inform our readers, using both units is preferred. The term "international" simply means units that everyone can understand. I personally prefer the metric system, and really don't understand why the United States (my country) hasn't fully adopted it. It's a somewhat-unknown piece of trivia (my apologies to WP:TRIV) that the United States actually formally adopted (via law) the metric system about 40 years ago. It's taught in schools, some portions of highways are marked in km, drinks (except for milk) are sold in ml and liters ... it's just not universally used.

Best wishes. Truthanado (talk) 14:01, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Springfield

I've requested semi-protection, but I doubt we'll get it. We're fighting a losing battle because EW and all the other blogs and news services are reporting it as him saying it is located in Oregon. So that's what Twitter thinks is true. Gran² 22:51, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

All over the radio too, everywhere. Never seen so much buzz over something like this. I just visited Springfield, Oregon and reverted the most recent edit from an IP adding Homer to the Notable people section. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to e^{Stalk me} 01:00, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

11-12

The articles in the footer template. English cricket team in Sri Lanka in 2011–12, South African cricket team in New Zealand in 2011–12, etc. Lugnuts (talk) 09:33, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Seamus (dog)

Seamus (dog), an article which is part of WikiProject presidential elections has been proposed for deletion. Feel free to join the discussion. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seamus (dog) (2nd nomination) HHIAdm (talk) 23:50, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

User name HiLo

Greetings from another sports-mad country.

Any idea where your HiLo came from? I use it on an on-line auction site in S.A. Maybe I can sell u my user rights ha-ha!

Aliwal2012 (talk) 08:17, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you,

HiLo,

I am not very familiar with the editing process on Wikipedia and I have often believed it to be very non-politically motivated, however recently I have been looking to the talk sections and the history sections and have come to believe that it can be very partisan. I would like to thank you for your voice of reason in the recent discussions concerning both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama. As I do not edit much and do not have an account I am glad there are people like you editing and looking out for what many are not and that is neutrality.

Thank you, opps see I am not very good --72.186.126.17 (talk) 21:47, 14 May 2012 (UTC) forgot to sign

Climate of Australia

Hello HiLo:

I saw your mention of the climate of Australia. I understand it varies a lot from north to south. (That is probably self-evident but, never having been there, I'm seeking confirmation.)

What part of the year would be good for a visit to Sydney and Melbourne? I'm told that between times when it is too hot or too cold, or dust storms blowing up, or school breaks when prices are high, there is no good time. I think they were joking but is there some truth to that?

Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 11:13, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Help Survey

Hi there, my name's Peter Coombe and I'm a Wikimedia Community Fellow working on a project to improve Wikipedia's help system. At the moment I'm trying to learn more about how people use and find the current help pages. If you could help by filling out this brief survey about your experiences, I'd be very grateful. It should take less than 10 minutes, and your responses will not be tied to your username in any way.

Thank you for your time,
the wub (talk) 18:12, 14 June 2012 (UTC) (Delivered using Global message delivery)

Okay, you win! ;)

Allright!1! You tried to talk me into it and I said 'no'!!2!!! Now I have an account!!3!!! You've broken me down!!4!! You've won, mmmkay? ;) Best wishes. One21dot216dot (talk) 08:41, 16 June 2012 (UTC) (previously known as 121.216.230.139)

Trayvon Martin Shooting

Your confrontational edit note - "And I'll take it out again. The significance is not obvious, and I ask, known by whom? Take it to Talk please." - is not appreciated. The information is sourced, and it's at least as signficant as humanizing details about Zimmerman's life. What's the problem? Why be an asshole about it? Apostle12 (talk) 03:49, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

And, yes, I AM calling you an asshole...so what?! Apostle12 (talk) 03:49, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

No trespassing!

My policy is to avoid contentious people. LIKE YOU! Do not post on my "Talk" page; all postings will be removed immediately. FU AH. Apostle12 (talk) 07:38, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Weird. Asks me questions, somewhat rudely, on my Talk page, then objects when I politely respond on his. Seems like illogical behaviour to me. Matches his logic at Trayvon Martin's page. I'll just work to protect the article from now on, rather than trying to converse with him. HiLo48 (talk) 07:43, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	I have spotted your username regularly popping up and, on occasion, beating me to a reversion. You also seem to be active in a wide variety of activities on Wikipedia. Keep up the good work! LittleOldMe (talk) 07:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

AN/I

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Khazar2 (talk) 19:08, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		This has been due for a while. From someone who disagrees with you 3/4 of the time, to someone who understands what an objective world encyclopedia should be, and puts all else aside in pursuing that end, and who's methods of disputing are refreshingly direct. North8000 (talk) 13:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

We've had our moments, but

The discussion at AN/I makes for depressing reading, but there's really nobody to blame for it but yourself. Now, before you blank this post in a burst of righteous anger, hear me out please. I've been in the same place, and there's absolutely no point in blaming anybody else, for provoking you, or being unreasonable, or acting worse. It might feel good to lay down all that anger on others, but in the end, you need to listen to what people are saying. Just as I did.

Disagreement and contrary opinions are fine. That's the way different people are, and that's the way different people are always going to be. Everybody sees things a little differently, and that, in my opinion, is a good thing for a healthy community.

But in a community, there are ways to express disagreement that don't involve name-calling or aggression or rudeness. I'm not going to hold myself up as a shining example, because I know I still manage to rub people the wrong way. Despite my best intentions.

Can I just ask that you think about how to respond to others in a more positive fashion? You can do it, but it has to come from within yourself. All the blocks and bans and mentoring means nothing without a change of heart. But with a change, none of the other stuff is needed.

As I say, I've been there.

Cheers! --Pete (talk) 03:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Idiotic comment. As I said in my only response to all that bullshit at AN/I, to the very first of the myriad accusations, I haven't called anybody names. I may have committed other sins according to the middle American values of niceness that the Wikipedia masses seem to demand, but no name calling. When my accusers (and you) cannot get basic facts like that right, I fundamentally give up. HiLo48 (talk) 02:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

You've just called me idiotic. That's name-calling. If you cannot see why people are upset with your behaviour, then taking the line that everyone but you is wrong, makes sense, I guess. But it doesn't solve the problem. When all those other people - including me - call you a good editor, are they also wrong? I think you've got to look within yourself, and nobody else can force you to do this. --Pete (talk) 07:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I didn't call YOU idiotic. I called that particular comment from you idiotic. I still give up. Don't bother posting such poor logic here again. HiLo48 (talk) 07:37, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

You must realise that calling somebody idiotic and saying that what they wrote is idiotic are separated by a very fine line and people do not want to receive either criticism. -Bduke (Discussion) 10:35, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Nah, one idiotic comment can be a mistake that can easily be avoided next time round. That's quite different from being an idiot. I don't think anyone here is an idiot. HiLo48 (talk) 04:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Arguing that calling someone's comment "idiotic" somehow does not qualify as a personal attack, ironically enough is an "idiotic" comment. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

You can validly argue that it's a personal attack. I disagree in the particular cases where I have recently used the expression, but debate is possible. If, however, I had called someone an idiot, there could be no such discussion. I would be wrong. And that's the huge difference. I do not call people names. The condemnation and attacks on me at AN/I began with just such an accusation. And the same allegation was made by Pete at the start of this thread. While my accusers get it so wrong, I feel little guilt. HiLo48 (talk) 07:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

All we have on this site are words. So if you insult my words, you are insulting me. And vice versa. If someone says something insulting to someone else, it is not the source's place to dictate to the recipient of those words how they are supposed to feel about it. In fact, if someone calls me an idiot, that's funny. But if they call my words idiotic, that's an attack that I won't tolerate (unless they're right, which has been known to happen once in a blue moon). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:00, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I can see that perspective. And you're right, all we have are words. That's why it's important that people get them right. I am simply not guilty of name-calling, and that's what I've been accused of, more than once. So, the words were seriously wrong. If the words made sense, the discussions at AN/I and elsewhere would make more sense. But they don't. It's pretty hard to defend oneself against bullshit. As you can tell, I'm a pretty pedantic old bastard. I do choose my words carefully. I would never accuse someone of calling them names if they hadn't actually done so. In the example you have raised, you could definitely accuse me of insulting you if I called a comment of yours idiotic. Then we could discuss BOTH those comments. I grew up in and now live and work daily in a culture where we generally don't, often for practical time related reasons, mince words. If someone is talking bullshit, it's normal and virtually expected that someone will call them on it. There's a lot of bullshit written at times in Wikipedia discussions. My instinctive approach is to immediately point it out. Nice people from America may not behave that way. I am not a nice person from America. But this is a global encyclopaedia. Do we all have to pretend that we are nice people from America to be allowed to contribute? That would certainly rule out a lot of colleagues I'm trying to encourage to contribute. HiLo48 (talk) 20:31, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The Wikipedia way to conduct warfare is to misuse policies and guidelines to conduct warfare.....you can be far nastier and more destructive that way while still claiming that you are behaving OK. While you and I disagree more than we agree, and your style is rougher than mine/ I prefer, I much prefer your way to the more common tactics that I described. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:38, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I can understand, and even to a degree accept, some of what you say above, HiLo. The one problem I have with the phrasing of your above statement is that, basically, if you are calling, as a made-up example, my interpretation of policy "idiotic", and I happen to be an admin/arb/crat or whatever, that's a pretty serious insult, considering you are basically telling a person in a position of privelege and responsibility that their judgment regarding the duties they have been given the right to perform is basically incompetent. "Idiotic" has a fairly clear formal meaning, and, in those admittedly artificial circumstances, yeah, that's an insult, and a fairly serious one, as it, basically, only differs in function from calling them incompetent by using a word which, clinically, is even possibly stronger than "incompetent". In general, I myself like being able to talk directly and from the heart, and I know that several times around here we are not supposed to that. I also know, as User:Ohconfucius and others do as well, that once in a while around here you basically butt your head against so much stupidity that you lose your temper. That sucks, but it happens.

Personally, if we interacted more often, like if I were involved in In The News, I would probably agree with you, because I think we give undue weight to US/North American material as well. But it might be a good idea to, when you do feel like denigrating the opinions of others, to use language which doesn't have the same sort of, well, "clinical" definition that idiotic and some other words do. John Carter (talk) 22:39, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Arguing about whether someone has been called a name or not is not something I think is important. It's the spirit of the thing, not the letter of the law, and if a person sets out to make others unhappy, they are being uncivil. People play all sorts of games here, but when enough people are saying the same thing, it is probably worthwhile listening to them. WP:DUCK and WP:DICK make a pair of handy guides here, I think. --Pete (talk) 23:12, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

That post basically says that getting the words right isn't important when you get them wrong. HiLo48 (talk) 23:49, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

It is what is in one's heart that matters most. If one aims at upsetting others and making them feel small or stupid or unimportant, one will always find a way. I'm asking if you can see it in your heart not to follow that path. You are a good and valued editor. --Pete (talk) 23:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

What's in one's heart is irrelevant when we are trying to find the correct and precise wording for an encyclopaedia. HiLo48 (talk) 00:05, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban enacted

Per this discussion at ANI, you are topic banned from WP:ITN and related discussions for a period of six months. Apologies, but that's the consensus. --regentspark (comment) 13:45, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

LOL. A victory for a kangaroo court. I have no idea what this is actually for. I gave up reading that attack thread (I now see that it's many threads) of hatred against me after the first few posts. The very first post accused me of name calling. That's something I don't do. Then I was told I had to keep being nice to someone persistently trying to add a religious perspective to a non-religious topic. Sorry, that's not going to help Wikipedia. Such editors just waste our time. Then I was accused of personal attacks. Again, no, I don't do that. I DO vigorously point out when someone has said something dumb, which is obviously not the same as saying they are dumb. Hell, I say dumb things myself, but I won't admit to being dumb. I was accused of bludgeoning people when I made a proposal to change policy. What I found was that people either didn't understand my proposal, so I felt justified in putting more effort into explaining it, or deliberately chose to misrepresent my position, which I should not be expected to put up with. I can deal with losing a debate, I cannot deal with being silenced with ignorance and bullshit.

I saw no point in trying to defend myself in such an environment. There was so much vituperative garbage at the start of the thread that I gave up reading for the sake of my sanity. I won't read it now. It would probably lead me to making more firm (but true) comments that wouldn't be liked by those editors who prefer artificial niceness to vigorous and honest debate.

So, I have no idea why I have been banned. My single goal here is to make a better encyclopaedia. I don't believe I've done anything wrong. That notice above certainly doesn't tell me the purpose. It will silence me at that topic. That will please those who disagree with my views in general. Was that the goal? Unfortunately it will also vindicate the actions of those who posted with hatred, ignorance and bigotry in that thread.

I wonder what people really think the ban will achieve in the longer term? I won't have changed after six months, especially when I don't know what my crime was. What's the point? HiLo48 (talk) 18:44, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

If you're unwilling to read the thread (which seems a bit silly), I can summarize it for you very simply: calling the comments and actions of other editors things like ignorant, stupid, idiotic, arrogant, etc., is unproductive to constructing an encyclopedia. Typing comments like "are you an idiot?" is a waste of everyone's time; it includes no reasoning, discusses no content, and unnecessarily escalates a conversation. That's why other ITN editors, me included, have so consistently found you to be disruptive presence. It has little to do with your opinions in themselves, which are shared by several editors there that no one complains about. I hope you'll be able to return at the end of the ban and continue arguing them, but in a fashion that respectfully explains your reasoning without questioning the intelligence or competency of other editors.

To put this another way, if you find the AN/I thread such "vituperative garbage" that you are literally unable to read it, why do you expect people to read far more aggressive comments of your own? Surely if their critique of your tone qualifies as "hatred and bigotry", your own comments passed that mark long ago as well; you would never accept another editor speaking to you the way that you speak to them.

I hope you'll be willing to take this as an opportunity to reflect on your actions a bit, but I understand that may take time. Nothing personal. Khazar2 (talk) 19:00, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Yet another post that completely misses the point, attacks me in general without any specifics, and is made without reference to most of what I have actually just said. And therein lies the problem. I say again, I have no idea what this is actually for. Even if you believe the ban is completely justified (and maybe it is), what's the point? How can I change if I am not told what to change, nor given a chance to discuss it in a rational environment? HiLo48 (talk) 19:10, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I named several very specific examples of your comments. More are discussed at the AN/I thread, along with accompanying diffs. These are the non-constructive type of comments you need to avoid. I'm doing my best, but I'm not sure how it can be made any clearer; I might just step aside here and let you discuss it with a fresh party such as Regentspark. All the best in your editing, and I hope we'll work together again soon under better circumstances. Khazar2 (talk) 19:15, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

You have mentioned no specifics at all here. And I won't read that thread at ANI any more. I have explained why. You may have made some wise comments there, but seriously, you must know that there was some hatred and bullshit on display. I don't post bullshit based on hatred and a lack of logic, and shouldn't have to put up with it from others. Sorry if that means I missed your gems, but you chose to accept those players on your team. HiLo48 (talk) 19:21, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Specifics: "calling the comments and actions of other editors things like ignorant, stupid, idiotic, arrogant, etc., is unproductive to constructing an encyclopedia. Typing comments like "are you an idiot?" is a waste of everyone's time". If you need the exact diffs, you can go to AN/I, or check the ITN/C history to see yourself saying these things.

After this, I'm tapping out. All best, Khazar2 (talk) 19:41, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps not hatred but love. So many people saying you are good but could be better. Do you yourself criticise others out of hatred or a wish to see the behaviour end and the person thrive? --Pete (talk) 19:02, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Drop the sentimental bullshit. The posts at the start of those threads weren't made out of love. They were ignorant attacks. HiLo48 (talk) 19:10, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

ENOUGH!!!

I put considerable thought into the words I chose in the second post of this thread. Can anyone wanting to respond please read ALL of those words, and respond to All of them, not part of some half remembered, alleged sin of mine in another place and at another time. Neither Khazar2 nor Pete/Skyring have actually said anything helpful in the context of what I wrote in that second post above, nor have they indicated that they have actually read it fully and carefully. If they did, their responses are inadequate. Can others please try harder. HiLo48 (talk) 20:50, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I read everything you wrote and I made my comments out of affection for you. If you truly cannot understand what so many other editors are saying about specific behaviours, giving examples and saying how it affects them, then give up now. You are criticising others for the behaviour that you display yourself and are apparently blind to. Look within yourself for the answer, because you are not hearing good advice. I have every faith that you will continue to be a good editor, and I trust that you will one day see and accept that treating others politely is a joy in itself. I mean every word of the above with all my heart - please accept it so. --Pete (talk) 22:50, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

If you're truly having difficulty understanding community norms, perhaps you might consider seeking a mentor? Then you'd have an uninvolved, friendly party who could help you navigate and/or avoid any future disputes. (Last suggestion, I promise). Khazar2 (talk) 13:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Nah. That's more bullshit. I see now that community norms including allowing editors who hate me to write absolute crap about me, then when I point out they are wrong, they invent some more crap,, etc, etc, etc, then ALL those comments remain visible in the attack thread forever. That's not justice. That's a lynch mob. There was no point in me trying to defend myself there. So I had no chance to discuss at all at that thread. And it's the community norm. Can a mentor explain why that's good for Wikipedia? Can you? HiLo48 (talk) 20:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree that this topic ban is nonsense. I am no fan of or friend of HiLo48's. But all sorts of racist nonsense goes on there all the time (anything to do with America or American posters is fair game) yet is never called out. I asked that HiLo's sins beside disagreeing with people be named explicitly on the ANI thread. Were they listed? No. Apparently twice in one year (how far back do people's memories go?) he called someone a prick or some other name no one remembers. A six month ban for two incidents of name calling when "American" is the most powerful but free-pass swear word on any board? These are the actions of a lynch mob, no different from the committee that murdered Socrates by majority vote. No one remembers any of those killers names any more, do we? μηδείς (talk) 04:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Medeis. HiLo48 (talk) 08:08, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Julia Gillard / AWU scandal

• "Cut the crap Pete. That's both bullshit AND irrelevant"[1]
• "(Apart from the ALP and Gillard haters here.)"[2]
• "So don't bullshit me" [3]
• "It's completely obvious to anyone with any brains at all that the ONLY reason that article has been created is to assist ALP and Gillard haters in their goal of getting rid of the Gillard government."[4]
• "You're one of the biggest speculators on Wikipedia, with all your theories about Gillard. Your erratic behaviour on Gillard and union threads is leading those newbies astray. You're a far bigger problem than I am. Piss off!"[5]
• "Bullshit[...]Stop pretending to be ignorant of it. Piss off."[6]
• "I wonder why the creator tried to conceal that?"[7]
• "I regard you as a dangerous, loose cannon on Wikipedia."[8]
• "I find it depressing but very revealing that none of those attempting to throw mud at Gillard through this article..."[9]
• "Your naivety astounds me."[10]

You have edited here for long enough to know that this kind of language is unhelpful to the project. Please curb your incivility. If you persist in this bullying behaviour, particularly towards Skyring/Pete, I intend to escalate this to the next step in the dispute resolution process. --Surturz (talk) 00:52, 24 August 2012 (UTC)