User talk:HiLo48: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:43, 8 April 2020

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:

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) How are you? Be I am good[reply]

Hello

Hello! Just wanted to say thank you for introducing yourself. Thank you for the cookies! Thank you for the informative and helpful guideline for Wikipedia's usage. This place allowed me to do things more within accordance. I, too, as the previous editor whom made a similar response as I; write over theirs for the reason, that I believe, this is how the 'hello/introduction' beginning responsive chat *begins*. Nice to talk with you! Please notify me if you see my signature. Here are my four tildes. AlterĒvolvere (talk) 05:35, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Message

How about you read some of the Greens policies and you'll see they're clearly left wing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.195.129.208 (talk) 07:18, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because what you or I think we see has no impact on what appears in Wikipedia articles. HiLo48 (talk) 07:48, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll find that's the whole point; consistency. They have left wing politics according to Wikipedia on other pages so that's what will be put. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.195.129.208 (talk) 07:52, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have you actually read what's on your Talk page, or ANY of the policies mentioned there? For starters, the place to discuss content of Australian Greens is on the Talk page of that article. Arguing with me here will achieve nothing. HiLo48 (talk) 07:57, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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;

Any cross-party hugfest can only be initiated by the right,
Any internal hugfest (or support of one another) within the right should NOT be constued as anything more than friendliness and cheerful banter,
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 sections. 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[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

A kitten for you!

For your sport work. :)

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

In this issue:

Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
Research: The most recent DR data
Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 19:07, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #2)

To add your named to the newsletter delivery list, please sign up here

This edition The Olive Branch is focusing on a 2nd dispute resolution RfC. Two significant proposals have been made. Below we describe the background and recent progress and detail those proposals. Please review them and follow the link at the bottom to comment at the RfC. We need your input!

View the full newsletter

Background

Until late 2003, Jimmy Wales was the arbiter in all major disputes. After the Mediation Committee and the Arbitration Committee were founded, Wales delegated his roles of dispute resolution to these bodies. In addition to these committees, the community has developed a number of informal processes of dispute resolution. At its peak, over 17 dispute resolution venues existed. Disputes were submitted in each venue in a different way.

Due to the complexity of Wikipedia dispute resolution, members of the community were surveyed in April 2012 about their experiences with dispute resolution. In general, the community believes that dispute resolution is too hard to use and is divided among too many venues. Many respondents also reported their experience with dispute resolution had suffered due to a shortage of volunteers and backlogging, which may be due to the disparate nature of the process.

An evaluation of dispute resolution forums was made in May this year, in which data on response and resolution time, as well as success rates, was collated. This data is here.

Progress so far

Leading off from the survey in April and the evaluation in May, several changes to dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN) were proposed. Rather than using a wikitext template to bring disputes to DRN, editors used a new javascript form. This form was simpler to use, but also standardised the format of submissions and applied a word limit so that DRN volunteers could more easily review disputes. A template to summarise, and a robot to maintain the noticeboard, were also created.

As a result of these changes, volunteers responded to disputes in a third of the time, and resolved them 60% faster when compared to May. Successful resolution of disputes increased by 17%. Submissions were 25% shorter by word count.(see Dispute Resolution Noticeboard Statistics - August compared to May)

Outside of DRN other simplification has taken place. The Mediation Cabal was closed in August, and Wikiquette assistance was closed in September. Nevertheless, around fifteen different forums still exist for the resolution of Wikipedia disputes.

Proposed changes

Given the success of the past efforts at DR reform, the current RFC proposes we implement:

1) A submission gadget for every DR venue tailored to the unique needs of that forum.

Similar to the one that was deployed, with great success, to the DRN.
Structured based on the specific issues most commonly dealt with at each forum.
Designed to improve the quality of requests for DR and the efficiency of DR at that forum.
Applicable at following noticeboards: Dispute resolution, Neutrality, Reliable Sources, Original Research, Biographies of Living Persons, Notability noticeboard, Fringe theories, Conflict of Interest, Ethnic and cultural conflicts, External links, Third opinion, Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee.
Forms will merely fill out any existing templates (such as Arbcom's) and create a markup-free form in line with specific noticeboard practices otherwise.
Example form fields: What pages are involved? What users are involved? What is the issue? What resolution is desired?

2) A universal dispute resolution wizard, accessible from Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

This wizard would ask a series of structured questions about the nature of the dispute.
It would then determine to which dispute resolution venue a dispute should be sent.
If the user agrees with the wizard's selection, s/he would then be asked a series of questions about the details of the dispute (for example, the usernames of the involved editors).
The wizard would then submit a request for dispute resolution to the selected venue, in that venue's required format (using the logic of each venue's specialized form, as in proposal #1). The wizard would not suggest a venue which the user has already identified in answer to a question like "What other steps of dispute resolution have you tried?".
Similar to the way the DRN request form operates, this would be enabled for all users. A user could still file a request for dispute resolution manually if they so desired.
Coding such a wizard would be complex, but the DRN gadget would be used as an outline.
Once the universal request form is ready (coded by those who helped create the DRN request form) the community will be asked to try out and give feedback on the wizard. The wizard's logic in deciding the scope and requirements of each venue would be open to change by the community at any time.

3) Additionally, we're seeking any ideas on how we can attract and retain more dispute resolution volunteers.

Please share your thoughts at the RfC.

--The Olive Branch 18:41, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I have to record this before it gets buried

"...user HiLo48 has a biased towards Netball and against male sport's."

I think it's a gem.

HiLo48 (talk) 06:24, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	YOU are a human being with a brain, NO scarecrows allowed. Kennvido (talk) 10:29, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed closure of RfC/U

Hello there, I'm a relatively uninvolved user in relation to your editing. I took a read through the RfC/U and proposed a closure at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/HiLo48#Proposed Closure. Please read it and see if it is something you could live with. Having read your user page declaration I think that it is. Please let me know. Thanks Hasteur (talk) 16:51, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hasteur, I appreciate what you're trying to do here. For reasons I've outlined many times elsewhere, I regard Wikipedia's justice and discipline processes to be appalling opportunities for the bigots and POV pushers to promote their non-constructive and malicious agendas, and pile mud on an accused, with virtually no chance that their behaviour will be scrutinised in that place, nor for the accused to defend themselves, so I really would prefer to not have to look at any of that RFC/U. It will just make me feel like being uncivil because of the masses of nonsense therein. But, because I can see that yours is a good faith proposal, I have had a look at just that section.

Again, because I know that many of those who would like to silence me do look at my User pages, I'll copy the proposal here for clarity:

HiLo48 acknowledges that their behavior, at times, is incivil and will endeavor to refrain from the identified language. HiLo48 acknowledges that future incivil behavior may result in suspension of editing privileges or referral to ArbCom for resolution of the long standing conduct dispute.

I would still argue that most of this dispute is not a conduct one, but a content one. That should be obvious to any objective reader who might notice that everybody criticising me over civility has also disagreed with me over content, some very nastily. (But possibly without naughty words, which I think only makes it worse.) Attacking me over civility was always a distraction from the truth, and from making Wikipedia a great, objective encyclopaedia.

Another point - I would like all involved to look at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement. That's the latest incarnation of an agonisingly slow attempt by some here to firstly define incivility, and then decide on punishment for those evil folk who allegedly display it. The discussion really hasn't got past the definition stage. If Wikipedia cannot define incivility, logically, nobody can be disciplined for it. (I know logic doesn't really apply here, sadly, but....) Interestingly, much of that discussion has occurred with virtually no contributions from any of those more interested in attacking me at the RFC/U.

I will also repeat my point that some of my allegedly uncivil language has successfully drawn attention to some very nasty POV pushing by some of those who have now tried to silence me via the RFC/U, and ended up keeping some appalling, POV nonsense out of Wikipedia. I am proud of that. I ask objective observers, which would you prefer - no naughty words, but lots of POV in Wikipedia, or occasional telling-it-like-it-really-is on Talk pages, and a better encyclopaedia as a result?

In conclusion, my position on niceness is made clear at User:HiLo48#A non-swearing vow (Lying is safer). I have no plans to change that position. Ironically, it has been in place since well before the RFC/U, but nobody seemed to notice. Trying to silence an effective enemy must have seemed a much easier option to many than finding out the truth.

Again, thanks Hasteur for your good faith proposal here. HiLo48 (talk) 23:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the RfC/U was closed. It's hard to tell. It seems these things aren't publicised very well. Certainly nobody told me. Not sure what it all means. Nothing seems to have changed anywhere. Just a lot of nasty words written about me by people who don't like my approach to the damage they do to Wikipedia, while I was off making another few thousand positive contributions. Oh well, such is life. HiLo48 (talk) 11:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The LGBT Barnstar
	It's the very special LGBT Barnstar for the way you calmly handled the dispute with DarkGuardianVII on Talk:Homophobia. Congratulations and keep up the good work! ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 11:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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! Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	Brilliant thoughts and prose that emanate from you...! Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 22:01, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Good Lord, the vandals just won't leave LaPierre alone, Bravo Sir! Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 20:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Useful source for Sport in Australia and footy people

this Canberra Times article is pretty good and might be worthwhile trying to integrate into the Sport in Australia andFootball in Australia article.--LauraHale (talk) 05:53, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the same article appeared in The Age yesterday, so I posted a link on Talk:Football in Australia yesterday, seeking comment. No responses yet. Might just go ahead and use some of it. HiLo48 (talk) 07:31, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Resilient Barnstar

You've earned it. You've had a lot of stick; some earned, some not so much, and yet you're still here. You're a much valued contributor and the constant stream of vandalism to your user page is surely proof of this. If you're not getting vandalism then you're not working hard enough =P. Well done HiLo48 and keep your pecker up! (Pun intended) ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 22:13, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aussie rules as AFL

You asked in an edit summary at Sport in New South Wales‎ for a source for the use of AFL as an alternative name for Australian rules football. This article from the SMH mentions the phenomenon. Hack (talk) 12:15, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good source, and weird. I've clarified the statement, and added that source to the article. That name just seems wrong to me, and confusing, as that SMH article says. Does anybody in NSW care about that? Or are most simply unaware that their usage wouldn't work in other places? Australia is an interesting country. On one front we have the soccer fans, particularly in NSW telling everyone in Australia we must all call their game football, apparently in complete ignorance of the fact that that name cannot work in those states where Aussie Rules is VERY commonly called football, then we have NSW telling us all that Aussie Rules is called AFL. (Is it a secret push by the soccer fans?) We have less well informed Victorians totally confused about the difference between rugby union and rugby league, and using the names rugby and league interchangably, which annoys the folks up north. And everywhere I've said NSW probably applies to QLD, but I'm not certain, and everywhere I've said Victoria, it probably also applies to TAS, SA, WA, NT and the Riverina, but I can't be sure. Do we end up with multiple articles with different language for the one country, or do we constantly explain that our leather ball sports have different names in different parts of the country? Do we need an article on that fact alone? (Or do we already have it?) HiLo48 (talk) 21:27, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The usage seems pretty widespread in NSW and Qld in my experience. The odd thing is that the AFL are actually spreading the usage outside NSW/ACT. There is a nationwide grassroots participation program called Play AFL - targetted at getting kids playing Aussie rules. On the confusing naming of the various footballs, Football in Australia touches on the differences in terminology in the first section but could do with expansion and clarification. Hack (talk) 05:00, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aaarrghh. Newspeak lives. Corporations have no respect for correct language, do they? Sadly, that section in Football in Australia has only one citation, and it's dead. (What has the federal Dept of Culture and Recreation turned into since 2008?) Anything we add should be properly sourced. You've given us one good starting point. Not sure what else is around. The stuff on soccer vs football is a real challenge. Almost everyone who writes about it is pushing an agenda. (Except me of course.) HiLo48 (talk) 05:34, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Found the page originally on the Department of Culture and Recreation site - it had been replicated on another government website. Hack (talk) 04:02, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Following on to the points you make above and apropos of our discussions a couple of years ago, you may be interested to read this transcript: http://neososmos.blogspot.com.au/2012/09/researching-australian-soccer-history.html

I make no comment and I hope that you will appreciate that I am only pointing you to it as I know you have an interest in this.

You can respond here. I am watching here.

Cheers Silent Billy (talk) 07:03, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Terrific article. Thanks for sharing it. It certainly highlights the confusion over the name. And I learnt something - that the Victorian Football Association, an Aussie rules competition, got in the way of the name Association Football being used for soccer. I grew up in Gippsland, an early home of soccer in country Victoria, mentioned in the article. In fact it was in Yallourn, a now non-existent town in the Latrobe Valley. (Click on the link to discover why.) Thousands of European immigrants made soccer a big sport. In fact Yallourn was the state champion club one year back in the 1950s. But the name couldn't be football. That was already taken. That all that means that I know a fair bit about the game. I've coached girls teams at school, with some success. So, thanks for bringing back the memories. HiLo48 (talk) 08:18, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another interesting read on the Guardian Australia website - [1] Hack (talk) 08:10, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that one is written from a Sydney perspective. It's important to emphasise the difference between NSW/QLD, the rugby league states, and the rest of the country, where Aussie Rules reigns supreme. All the big soccer decisions come out of Sydney. And Aussie Rules is only mentioned in one paragraph, with "opponents of the "football" crusade charge its leaders like Foster with sporting imperialism, arguing that football in Australia refers to "the native game" Australian Rules." That's not my perspective. Mine is that one doesn't have to argue it. In the Aussie Rules states, "football" simply IS Aussie Rules. There is no point in arguing about it. All the clubs called football clubs play Aussie Rules. Most of the clubs that play the round ball game call themselves soccer clubs, for the extremely obvious and unarguable reason that Aussie Rules got the name "football" first in most communities. In my suburb and all our neighbouring suburbs we have one of each, a football club (Aussie Rules) and a soccer club. What sense would there be in the soccer club trying to become a football club? And I still don't understand what's wrong with the name "soccer". HiLo48 (talk) 08:30, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	For your numerous, thoughtful and enriching contributions across the wikiscape even in the face of a few misguided editors who have forgot their civility. Thank you for always being welcoming! ^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 08:20, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While you were out...

File:Message pad with pen.jpg	While you were out...
	An IP struck and left you an unpleasant message. Reverted it and warned the IP not to do it again I did. This is to let you know. Enjoy your day ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 12:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I always wonder how such comments contribute to the writer's sense of well-being. I guess everybody is different. HiLo48 (talk) 06:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Items of cultural significance in Australia

You have mentioned multiple times on ITN that Australian items get rejected. I'm all for a more inclusive ITN, so perhaps you can help me out with some items you'd like to see posted on an annual basis. I would assume Rugby Union and Australian Rules Football are at the top of the list in cultural importance. Rugby Union is well represented on ITN/R and Football is listed as well - hopefully they stay in the ITN/R rewrite. Then there is the Melbourne Cup and Australian Open, both ITN/R. I assume the swimming word championships are pretty darn important and aren't ITN/R so that's a potential target. Beyond sport, things are less clear to an outsider. Melbourne International Comedy Festival looks like a good candidate, but has never been nominated as far as I can tell. (Would you prefer the opening or the Barry Award?) Google suggested Perth International Arts Festival but our article is just a stub, so maybe its not important in Australia after all - maybe Adelaide Fringe Festival (or Adelaide Festival, not getting the distinction here) is the one that matters. Melbourne International Film Festival looks promising. Comments on the above? What else is worth targeting for inclusion? --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:42, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ITN/R items are less of a problem than one off events. Adding something to ITN/R can be done with discussion over several weeks or months. There is no deadline. And fewer editors driven mainly by emotion stick around. It allows time for more mature and complex discussion. I have a greater confidence that a new proposal could make it there.

But for one-off events, decisions have to be made in a couple of days max, and if one or two Australian editors are up against a flood of American, Canadian, British editors, etc, saying "never heard of it", "not significant to enough people", etc, etc, an item doesn't stand a chance. Our not voting policy effectively goes out the door and the masses win every time. To promote such items you would need to get a few more supporters, and really highlight the need for quality discussion, and not voting. On the latter point, I've sometimes felt that any post on any item which says something like "Support - per X" (or "Oppose - ....") should be treated as nothing more than a vote, not a useful contribution to discussion, and instantly deleted. HiLo48 (talk) 07:21, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now, for your education, on the football front in ITN/R, there's something called the Barassi Line which separates the Australian population roughly in half, with those to the south and west being obsessed with Australian football, and the two eastern states loving Rugby league. Each group can be quite contemptuous of the other's favourite code. Rugby union is also of some interest in the latter area, but not as big.

As for events of cultural significance, leave it with me. I shall mull it over. HiLo48 (talk) 07:21, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do. I would certainly like to see more Australian things posted. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:48, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that supports and opposes without rationales should be given limited weight, but "per [another user]" is a reason, and stops several users repeating the same point over and over. Good luck getting more Australian stories posted, would be interesting. 85.167.109.26 (talk) 16:07, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that cultures heavily represented here will inevitably have a lot more "per [another user]" posts than smaller ones. So long as I see Admin closes containing words to the effect of "a lot more oppose/support posts than the other", accepting "per [another user]" posts simply reinforces the existing systemic bias, and I say to myself "What's the point of trying?". Such comments from closing Admins appear almost every day, and they get very cross when I suggest that they're just counting votes, but I'm afraid I don't see it any other way. We should always and virtually only ever be looking at the quality of posts, not the quantity. HiLo48 (talk) 23:03, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but how does one assess a quality argument when ITN is essentially just about opinion? I mean you can discount a few obviously low quality !votes, but beyond that one will generally see arguments they agree with being "high quality" and those they don't as "low quality". You make a good point about editor numbers, of course. However, I would like to think a majority of the ITN regulars are fair enough to evaluate most items honestly (perhaps I'm wrong). There are exceptions - you probably know who they are as well as I a do - who exhibit strong "yes US, no others" or "yes UK, no others" biases. Those votes can be given little weight, but after that I think numbers have to enter into a decision to post or not. To completely ignore numbers is a license to supervote.

Of course US items do attract an unusually large number of "occasional voter" supports. (In fairness, they also attract an unusual number of occasional voter opposes.) That can and should be taken into account. I don't know if it often is, but I do not think it is any easier to get a US item posted than an average item (UK maybe). The discussions tend to be a lot longer and more contentious, sure, but most vigorously opposed US items do not end up getting posted. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:39, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perfectly agree with your last sentence, my point is that "per a high-quality argument" is equivalent to the high-quality argument, i.e. "User:Example makes a good argument, and I'm going to recommend the course of action because I substantially agree with the bulk of what s/he said". Of course, weak arguments (e.g. I like it) should be given limited or no weight, as should a "per" of such arguments. 85.167.109.26 (talk) 23:41, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That post doesn't address the massive numerical bias in favour of some cultures, nor the Admins saying "a lot more oppose/support posts than the other". It's the combination of all these factors that kills nominations from smaller cultures. And it really does kill them stone dead. HiLo48 (talk) 23:52, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the majority uses valid arguments or agrees with valid arguments they have consensus and the item will get posted, regardless of whether it "really" merits it or not. Anyway, I don't think opposing US (or UK, Australia etc.) items on grounds of geography increases the chance of posting a similar event related to a smaller country. Of course, you should oppose if you find that the event is not noteworthy enough. 85.167.109.26 (talk) 10:43, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have just used majority as part of a definition of consensus. That's mixing up voting and consensus seeking. They are NOT the same thing. And we're not supposed to vote here. (Despite the sad fact that a lot of closing Admins at ITN mention the number of support and oppose posts. That depresses me too.) But of course I agree that we shouldn't play tit for tat games on a geographical basis. I'm not sure from that post exactly what your own total position is. Have you read my post below? I'd be interested in anyone else's thoughts. HiLo48 (talk) 11:01, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In short, a clear majority based on strong, valid arguments is sufficient for consensus as consensus is not unanimity. A clear majority based on flawed, invalid or unsustainable arguments is insufficient for consensus as consensus is not based on voting. 85.167.109.26 (talk) 11:44, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's pretty close to how I think it should work. I wish it always did. HiLo48 (talk) 11:48, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's a nomination at ITN for Jean Stapleton. It's pretty obvious that's going to be posted, and I have no strong objection. I've even helped improve her article. But what goes through my head every time I look at that thread is that it would be much harder for an Australian actress whose fame depended really only on one Australian TV show, even if that actress had won dozens of Logies. (Yes, I know that most here won't have a clue what they are, but that's part of my point.) It would be even worse if that show was a copy of an American show, as Stapleton's was a copy of a British show. I don't think I'd even bother nominating the person. I would only get one or two other Australians interested, because that's how many hang around ITN, and the opposes in the form of "Who?" would be overwhelming. I don't have the energy to play that game. But do others think HiLo48 (talk) 06:40, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notable Australian actors and actresses should be posted to RD, in my opinion. 85.167.109.26 (talk) 11:44, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But how would we overcome the inevitable opposition from the masses? HiLo48 (talk) 11:48, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And what qualifies as notable? Is someone notable because they played a major character on Neighbours for a few years 25 years ago and did the odd guest appearance on various programmes thereafter? Where do we draw the line? It seems to me the person should be internationally famous or massively famous in her own country. Stapleton was neither. -Rrius (talk) 12:02, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deep down I probably agree with you about Stapleton, but there's an awful lot of American editors who simply cannot comprehend your perspective. Obviously, if Stapleton is notable, so would Ray Meagher be should we lose him too early, but the chances of most American editors supporting such a nomination would be non-existent, even though he won the Gold Logie! I don't see a way past that bias. HiLo48 (talk) 12:09, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, notable in acting is "internationally famous or massively famous in [their] own country", or perhaps winning an Academy Award for Best Actor/Actress in a leading role. Therefore, I struggle to see sufficient notability in Stapleton's case and I won't support it. 85.167.109.26 (talk) 12:31, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm thinking right now is that if I made a post there agreeing with you, there would be immediate responses of the form "Typical HiLo anti-Americanism. He just hates everything about America." Shall I try and see if I'm right? HiLo48 (talk) 12:36, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Actually, it's late here. I'm off to bed. I'll watch to see developments by morning. Will Medeis have posted it anyway? Wouldn't surprise me.) HiLo48 (talk) 12:40, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you do, I sincerely hope you're wrong. 85.167.109.26 (talk) 12:42, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Academy awards are only given for movies. The Emmys are the equivalent award for television, so to say someone who wins an Academy Award is "at the top of their field" and someone who wins an Emmy is not is a poor argument. Since the introduction of Recent Deaths, we have been able to post more deaths (implicitly lowering the bar even if some object to that terminology). I am quite confident if an Australian who won "dozens of Logies" was nominated they would pass easily with the current standards. We've had several Indian actors pass on notability grounds (but not necessarily quality grounds) recently, for example. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:14, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hope both that you're right, and that I don't have to nominate any successful Australian actors dying any time soon. HiLo48 (talk) 22:10, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And I was wrong and right about the Jean Stapleton ITN nomination. It has been posted, but not by Medeis. I still don't see justification, nor proper response to the opposes, just bullying style and dishonest "the Opposes don't follow policy", so my respect for our processes there has diminished even more. Why should I bother? HiLo48 (talk) 22:24, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But Medeis has scored a spectacular own goal in the Scripps nomination by writing "vote is 9 to 8 in favor", and then continuing with a belittling commenting about "most of the opposes..." This editor is an insulting, loose cannon. HiLo48 (talk) 22:32, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Scripps discussion is a disaster for a variety of reasons, but I'm not sure what you mean about Stapleton. I see a minor debate over how to determine if someone is worthy of posting (i.e. follow media coverage or not), an answering of your question, and a difference of opinion about where the bar for being important enough is. I don't see anyone saying "opposes don't follow policy" in that nomination. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:00, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we get to test my theory earlier than expected, or would you consider this one too obvious to count as a test of a more accepting RD? --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:32, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's kinda sad, but even more sadly, not really unexpected. I'd actually met Mandawuy, and a few members of his extended family - lots of musos - and he was younger than I am. Health issues are huge in Aboriginal communities. But this is a valid test for ITN, and seems to be passing with flying colours. Maybe a high profile one at this stage is good. HiLo48 (talk) 05:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you!

I just came across this comment. If that doesn't deserve a beer I don't know what does. Drink up mate. Hot Stop 02:03, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Yes, I do laugh when I see how some people think they can advance the position of their political favourites. Here in Australia, our current Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, could be said to have broken a promise she made on a carbon tax before the last election. (There's even some debate about that.) But the opposition and some shock-jocks decided to call here a liar over it. That has led to the (not) absolutely hilarious habit among her sworn enemies of calling her Juliar. After the first couple of times, even those amused by it initially were surely no longer amused, but two and a half years later it still happens. Doubt if anyone will change their vote over it now. HiLo48 (talk) 02:55, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

"please stop wasting your time and ours"
Thank you for investing your time in greeting IPs and politely telling some "Please stop wasting your time and ours", for typo fixing and quality reverts, for working in this place although it is as it is, but challenging the status quo, - I wish you luck, you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:47, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A year ago, you were the 512th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:20, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! HiLo48 (talk) 23:20, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Three years ago, you were recipient no. 512 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:33, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Six years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:45, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has been editing as LoHi48

Someone has been editing as LoHi48. Obviously chosen with you in mind. I believe that it violates Wikipedia:Username policy. North8000 (talk) 12:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Saw that. It's weird. Whoever it is has been editing quite a few of the same articles I have recently edited, with quite positive and constructive changes. Not sure how I should respond. HiLo48 (talk) 19:56, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you have a silent admirer who has been learning from you. :-) North8000 (talk) 20:23, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have dropped a note at their talk page asking them to file for a change of name. While the name doesn't breach the WP:USERNAME policy as it stands, there is a potential for confusion, especially as you are editing similar areas. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 23:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks HiLo48 (talk) 02:24, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And not heard from nor heard of again since Kim Dent-Brown's conversation way back then. Weird. HiLo48 (talk) 03:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request for input in drafting potential guidelines

Hi. There are, at present, no particular clear guidelines for religious material here, or, for that matter, guidelines for how to deal with ideas in general, particularly those ideas which might be accepted as true by individuals of a given religious, political, or scientific stance. There have been attempts in the past to draft such guidelines, but they have quickly been derailed. I am dropping this note on the talk pages of a number of editors who I believe have some interest in these topics, such as yourself, and asking them to review the material at User:John Carter/Guidelines discussion and perhaps take part in an effort to decide what should be covered in such guidelines, should they be determined useful, and what phrasing should be used. I would be honored to have your input. John Carter (talk) 19:23, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry For Being A F%^kup

Hi HiLo48,

I am writing to apoligise for being a total douche. I have actually taken active steps to fix and prevent users like my old self. I doubt our paths will cross again but if they do I hope for both of us that they are on friendly terms. Thanks for not being a total d^*k back to me and helping me more understand this place. Cheers bud — Preceding unsigned comment added by TatRattis (talk) 03:01, 7 July 2013

That's cool. Thanks for thinking of posting here. HiLo48 (talk) 22:20, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ITN

Considering how close you came to a topic ban before (I opposed it), you might want to watch edits and summaries like this one. μηδείς (talk) 22:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for proving the truth of something I wrote on my User page some time ago. It's more acceptable to many here for editors to write utterly nonsensical, stupid, dishonest, ill-informed bullshit than to even hint at a naughty or rude word. I do wish the niceness police cared just a little more about the actual quality of this encyclopaedia, rather than making everyone conform to some officially undefined but bloody obvious conservative, middle American politeness. (Although ignoring reality and what others tell them, and writing utter tripe, is surely not very nice. HiLo48 (talk) 02:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell is wrong with me?

Excuse me, I'm not the dumb one you stupid retard. You are the one who is against progress on Wikipedia. Three other user other than myself have tried to edit pages of Spouses of Prime Ministers, but like I said, if you don't get your way, you block people from editing. I am new to Wikipedia so i do not know how to block people, but you should be banned without an expiry date for editing because you revert progress and do it your own way, and block others from editing when they try to contribute. You are arrogant, rude, disruptive, stupid, narrow minded and disgusting and instead of sitting at home waiting to revert peoples changes back to your way, you should get a job you lazy mutt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hellomynameisandrew19991999 (talk • contribs) 06:00, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ROTFLMAO! That's the best abusive post I've had in weeks. HiLo48 (talk) 06:06, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Like ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 08:30, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well played

Hello H. Regarding this post all I can say is very well done! I hope that we didn't get too out of line for a ref desk question but I appreciated your post anyway. Cheers and have a great week. MarnetteD | Talk 04:14, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Flanagan

Recently was directed to this article by Martin Flanagan, a countryman of yours. I was struck by his writing on a fairly obscure American, his various musings, and his thoughtful conclusion, which made me cast a virtual glance your way. Looking at his Wikipedia article, it seems a bit on the thin side. I might try to improve it a bit, and I thought you might like to join me, if you have a bit of time. Best wishes, Jus da fax 20:29, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good idea. As a regular reader of The Age, I'm aware of him, but can't say I know much about him. I respect his writing. The Age is an excellent newspaper although, like many today, it's fading because of the web. I've put the article on my Watchlist, and will look around. HiLo48 (talk) 22:03, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It appears he mostly writes soccer (or "footy" ...really? I am so out of it...) articles. I read one that touched me about a "doorman" who was dying that I found brilliant. Anyway if there are any overviews of his writing career I haven't found one yet. Jus da fax 22:32, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ha. You have just confronted one of Australia's greatest linguistic confusions (and confrontations). There are four sports played professionally in Australia (and at least two others played at a non-professional level) that are called "football" by at least some of their fans some of the time. In Melbourne, where Flanagan is based, and in Tasmania, his "other" home, it means Australian football. (Although some obsessive soccer fans will argue that point until death. If you have a few hours to spare, try to comprehend the discussion at Talk:Soccer in Australia#Requested move. But a warning, parts of it are not pretty.)

But back to Flanagan, yes, I've been reading his material for decades, but know almost nothing of his background. Obviously not a very public person. Just a bloody good writer. HiLo48 (talk) 22:46, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Despite clearly being his publisher's promo page, there's a bit of factual stuff here. HiLo48 (talk) 01:02, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Western Sydney Wanderers FC

I don't understand why your undid my edit. I have not changed the article in regards to the discussion on naming. I did it to simply improve the article. You are misunderstanding. I did not change the name "soccer". It still remained on the article since you change it in this edit and again in this edit (which I personally thought was ignorant and lacking on your part). Please allow me to improve the article with respect to the discussion on naming, as I previously did.--2nyte (talk) 08:41, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you're admitting that you don't understand. I am truly having trouble getting you to comprehend many of the issues around the soccer/football name discussion. I'm not sure how I can dumb it down any more for you. HiLo48 (talk) 10:33, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note, don't you find it strange that the Americans haven't tried to war over Football team yet and change it to American Football? Missed opportunity...especially since the current article is unsourced...Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 11:32, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Only became aware of that article today. Not too bad for an unreferenced piece. Surprisingly balanced. Wikilinking each of the different sports would at least (hopefully) give us confirmation of those numbers in a team in each sport. HiLo48 (talk) 11:47, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave that to you since the entire topic makes me boredgasm. Out of interest though, do you have a to-do list tucked away somewhere? I'm interested in what you're working on...Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 12:34, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the compliment, but I'm not organised well enough to have a list. I tend to do a lot of vandalism patrolling and incompetence driven editing. I see a lot of the latter on sports related articles. Not just soccer ones, but they tend to lead the pack on the latter criterion. Far too often they contain appalling grammar and spelling, pure fan cruft and, at times, blatant lies about a team's or a player's achievements. That way, from time to time I see an article that needs virtually a complete rewrite. I've also realised that by taking on others' stuff-ups and bullshit, I antagonise a lot of editors. That leads to at least some of the confrontations I'm told I get involved in far too often. But someone has to take on the clowns around here. HiLo48 (talk) 21:54, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as long as you're not being made a sccapegoat for other u=issues around here by anyone. Enjoy your sport articles and vandalism ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 23:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Football in Australia

Hey. I've had a crack at re-writing the article. I mostly drew in content from other articles either higher up or lower up including [[Sport in Australia}}, Women's assocation football in Australia, Women's sport in Australia, and Women's Australian rules football. I also went and looked for sources to better explain the terminology, removed sections that did not flow or were duplicated, changed some of the organization, etc. If you could take a look at it to make sure it now looks uniquely different enough from the other articles referenced, has an organization that makes a bit more sense, looks general enough in terms of focus on the various codes, that would be really appreciated. I do not necessarily see myself coming back to edit it soon. (I say, but I could be wrong about my time and interest.) --LauraHale (talk) 07:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting here... Can you go through some of those edits? The explanations sound reasonable in theory but looking at them specifically, they have a number of problems like including additions of unsourced information, changing the meaning of text so that it is no longer supported by the source, adding information that is patently not supposed by the added source, and removing content that contextualizes codes on a historical and regional level. His approach to it that the only content that should be in there is material that applies to all football in Australia is hugely problematic for me, because the body of work on Australian football (all codes) does not approach it this way. The academic work make it clear that football is not a cohesive thing where things parallel each other and one thing can lead to understanding another aspect of football in the country. The approach for football in this way is very much synthesis and original research. I'm pretty much at the end of my rope with this, because it feels like a situation where a particular point of view pushers keep hammering and hammering and hammering and wearing people down until I just want to throw up my hands and go "You know, fuck neutrality. Fuck what the sources say. Fuck accuracy. Fuck it all. I cannot deal with this continual hammering away until we get what we want and if you want that, then go for it. I won't stop you." And yeah. :/ --LauraHale (talk) 15:16, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Commendable restraint

How hard was it not to add other, more colorful, adjectives to the edit summary? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:58, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Though that rant did contain some original work I thought, suggesting that the moon race was "an attempt to distract men from destroying our world with war". Nice. HiLo48 (talk) 00:02, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone loves conspiracy theories. That wasn't the best argument i've seen against the moon landings, but it was interesting. More importantly to me - why are you watching that article HiLo48? I'm interested now ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 15:53, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a mature aged Australian who was pretty obsessed with the moon landings. I know a couple of people who did some work for the NASA communications systems in Australia at the time of Apollo 11. You may be aware that the Armstrong "One small step..." speech was actually first received in Australia because of where the moon was at the time. There were several dozen Australians involved. That these guys are part of a conspiracy (along with thousands of others in the US and around the world) is incomprehensible. After several career moves I'm now teaching Science, Mathematics and IT in high school. I see the conspiracy theorists as threatening decent education on those fronts. (Obviously "decent education" has already gone missing for them.)

Conspiracy theories are the only way for some of these people to get the attention they lack. The best way to beat them back is with a well reasoned argument. I commend you on that front.

Also, i can't remember what it was called but there was a show where they replicated all the experiments, tests, walking, and pretty much everything from the moon landings in a warehouse. If not for the thousands of people involved it would have been pretty convincing stuff and a real possibility that the moon landings could have been faked.

I'm still under the belief that the Loch Ness Monster was an elephant trunk though ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 09:48, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is my favourite Loch Ness Monster, on a salt lake bed in South Australia. HiLo48 (talk) 10:29, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's one hell of a rip off! I could build my own for free. I won't because the only place i could store it is on the roof, and the council won't like that...

Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 11:03, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My outburst

Regarding my outburst at you at the Ref desk yesterday, I know we don't always get along well at the ref desk, but I was out of line in my comment. I want to apologize for that. I've noticed I've done that a few times (not just at you). I've been stressed out lately and I'm venting it here too often. Accordingly I'm going to cool off a bit on Wikipedia for a little. Just thought I owed you an apology. Shadowjams (talk) 22:50, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, that's cool. I respect that post a lot. HiLo48 (talk) 23:35, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Special Barnstar
		For frequently making me smile at the RefDesks, and this morning in particular for making me snort tea through my nose all over the bedroom when reading this thread. Karenjc (talk) 07:34, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some people should live in a bubble, without internet or human contact if so easily offended. Swearing is a wonderful gift to humanity when used properly...ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 10:19, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

:-) North8000 (talk) 11:03, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit of a student of people taking offence. Choosing to be offended by "bore the shit out of..." guarantees that one will be pretty frequently offended. I do wonder what harm such people think is being done. I chose to do some vineyard labouring a few years back (I live in a wine region), and was chastised by my fellow workers for not swearing enough! They were a great bunch of people. Did tend to call a spade a fucking shovel though. My state government here in Australia has had a very successful, long lived road safety campaign built around the saying "bloody idiot". Should I be offended? HiLo48 (talk) 11:47, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, of course not. There is a world of difference between being offended and choosing to take offence, and another light-year between choosing to take offence and erecting dayglo safety barriers around the "offending" object in question, to alert unwitting passers-by to the fact that they, too, may be exposed to the perilous choice as to whether or not to take offence. It's all bollocks, really. Oops. - Karenjc (talk) 11:57, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Like - Better than any explanation I could think of. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 12:00, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wondering....................

Over the past month and a bit I've nominated the deaths of both Keith Dunstan and Chopper Read as recent deaths at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates. Neither was posted.

Neither was rejected either. They just dropped off the end of the nominations page with no action.

Both these people were very well known to Australians.

Although they received some silly objections, like Medeis saying that a one line update saying that a person who the article already told us had a fatal liver disease had finally died wasn't enough (dunno what else one could possibly write), they both received several good support posts.

My current impression is that there was simply no interested administrator available to post them. So nominations that didn't involve popular Americans or soccer players simply died through lack of interest from those who can do something about it.

So, how do we fix this? Can we fix it? Is it worth trying? HiLo48 (talk) 02:34, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HiLo48 comments

Among the many nasty comments directed at me was your suggestion that I give up. I am leaving Wikipedia and your outbursts are indeed a factor. So LOL and do all the immature posts that are a trademark of what, in, my opinion, is going wrong with Wikipedia. Do hope you take care and try to be calm.Patroit22 (talk) 22:04, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Patroit - you came to Wikipedia with a very obvious POV, that you wanted to impose here. To you it's obvious that Julian Assange and Chelsea Manning are evil people, and you believe that the world needs to be told this. Wikipedia cannot take such a position. It must state facts as found in independent, reliable sources. Your technical approach to editing here was also problematic. You argued that well established guidelines on editing did not apply to you. I saw too much arrogance, and a touch of incompetence and ignorance in your editing. If you cannot change those approaches, then you don't belong here. You're probably wise to leave. HiLo48 (talk) 01:59, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the first warning about the soapbox this week. The user doesn't like the trolling insinuation but is clearly still making noisy exits everywhere possible.

Patroit, you do not have to announce multiple times that you are leaving. If you want to leave then you have that option. It would be a shame to lose you, but until you get off your soapbox and end the cries for attention/noisy exits on multiple pages, then you are a disruption. It seems like you should be writing a blog, rather than trying to publish your theories here. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 09:34, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we all have our biases, but it's our job to not display them here if possible. I was very proud during last year's US Presidential campaign to be accused by fans of both major candidates of supporting the other side, after removing bullshit from both sides. I'm certain that Patroit thinks I'm some sort of pinko, whale hugging socialist, simply because I opposed his blatant right wing POV pushing, but I can live with that. HiLo48 (talk) 10:05, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can't please everyone and it would be foolish to try. Never heard of a "pinko" though. What is that? ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 10:32, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A little bit reddish. HiLo48 (talk) 10:35, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reddish? Are we going towards the word "wimp"? Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 10:38, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, no. It's the kind of red McCarthy was after. HiLo48 (talk) 10:39, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? I think i'm more confused now than when i started... ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 10:42, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, "pinko" = slightly red = communist inclined. HiLo48 (talk) 10:43, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We even have an article about it ... and of course McCarthyism. With our long-time socialist leanings, the whole country of Canada was pretty much considered a haven of pinkos. ES &L 11:29, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I get it now =D

Don't forget i'm in the UK. We don't hear about the "Communist threat" on a daily basis like the Americans do. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 12:34, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(added later) That changed / ended about 25 years ago. North8000 (talk) 14:07, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk about soapboxing. The comments by you two above are the poster child for such disruptive posts. I will decide when I leave . it will probably be when you tone down your comments on my posts. Understand?Patroit22 (talk) 13:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even the dreadful Daily Mail doesn't talk about Communists much North (Maybe they don't want to reveal that they share a lot of the same ideals).

Patroit, with that post you have demonstrated that you do not know what WP:Soapbox means. Might also want to look "disruption" up in a dictionary too. You just showed an example of it in your post but don't appear to know what it is. Take Kim Dent-Brown's advice. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 14:12, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

{outdent} Jenova, it was a big deal in the US when the USSR (and others secondarily) was considered a major threat. (i.e. "Communism" meant more USSR, China and others uniting to take over the world, not a form of government). With all of the changes that have occurred (especially USSR & China) it's no longer considered a big threat or issue in the US. North8000 (talk) 14:59, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware of what Communism is North. It's just never mentioned in the media I read, nor is it generally considered a threat. I imagine this is more a concern for Fox News and Republicans than for Europeans an Brits. That could be left over tension from the Cold War and Cuban Missile Crisis, but i don't really have any interest in speculating. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 18:56, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know that you knew that. What it appeared that you didn't know is that it has become rare in the US to hear about any communist threat from anywhere including Fox News or Republicans. North8000 (talk) 19:08, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, i'm working off what i occasionally see on tv and stereotypes. I don't live in the US after all so i have no idea how much of this is accurate.

I imagine the average American is like that of the Simpsons? No? Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 19:11, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Like in any country, we're quite varied and so I can't think of there being any representation of an average American. But thee are lots of people here like Lisa, Marge, Homer and Bart who, are, of course, all very different. :-) North8000 (talk) 19:27, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, no Ned Flanders? I liked that god-botherer ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 21:59, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We also have plenty of Neds. Haven't seen any Crusties yet though. But we do have the SUV's he advertises though - Cannyoneros. "Forty foot long, 2 lines wide, sixteen tons of American pride" North8000 (talk) 12:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your trump card

For next time you attract a troll or POV warrior. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 19:31, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. I can just imagine how some of my typical enemies, conservative, Bible bashing Americans, would take that. Not terribly well. HiLo48 (talk) 22:54, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Enemies? You don't have a twat list on a dartboard? I fixed the link as it broke. Someone got offended and they took it down (The irony). Thanks and have a nice night (or day, depending on what tie it is there). ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 23:13, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I find that some of those who hate me (in the Christian "Love thy neighbour" way of course"), tend to come and go fairly rapidly. They probably discover Conservapedia and find it a nicer place for them. They wouldn't have to think there. HiLo48 (talk) 23:19, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think religion rots the brain. Can't remember who authored it, but there was a study showing the deeply religious had a lower IQ than secular individuals. If you've spent much time around god-botherers, you can see for yourself quickly that reason and logic are not optional to sign up to their brand of cult. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 08:34, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at ANI

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

Who wrote that? (Is it more incompetence from Collingwoodwhatever?) HiLo48 (talk) 03:07, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And now my old stalker Pete/Skyring has chimed in with one of his usual holier-than-thou, ignoring everything I wrote, pieces, delighted with the chance to attack me again. And he forgot to indent it! Hilarious that those who hate me persistently show such incompetence. LOL. HiLo48 (talk) 03:54, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I forget a lot of things in my senior years, but i didn't forget to indent my comment. I was responding to Collingwood, not you. Nor do I hate you - I wish you all the best and hope that you may learn and prosper. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 04:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Piss off stalker! HiLo48 (talk) 05:51, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No no sorry that was me who posted this not Pete. I'm terrible at remembering to post my signature.--Collingwood26 (talk) 04:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also nobody hates you HiLo48--Collingwood26 (talk) 04:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And you still can't bloody well indent!!!!!!!!!!!!! A little competence may have avoided a lot of this drama, but you clearly don't learn!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! HiLo48 (talk) 05:51, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary

Even without looking at the diffs or the particular edit or the edit history of that other contributor, I thought this was extraordinary [2]. – S. Rich (talk) 04:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And that's where one of Wikipedia's biggest problems lies. You DIDN'T look at what I was responding to. Why not? Is moronic POV-pushing better than a little swearing? Don't try to separate the two. Without the former the latter would not have occured. If you condemn me, and don't do or say anything about the incompetence and irrational behaviour that started it all, YOU too are a huge part of the problem. HiLo48 (talk) 05:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "a little swearing". It's the personal attacks that are the problem. Hurting and humiliating other editors is not the way to win an argument. Not unless you believe in ad hominem as an effective tool. We all make mistakes, we all have differences of opinion. But we don't all lash out at others when we are challenged. Why not contact your mentor, ask him for advice? --Pete (talk) 06:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is not a lot of WIkiLove between you two. I suggest you both stay away from each other here and on the drama pages. The discourse is not doing you or the community any good. – S. Rich (talk) 06:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just had an edit conflict posting my standard response to Pete - Piss off stalker! He is already not supposed to be engaging with me, but was the first to respond at the ANI thread and here! Can't help himself, and never suffers consequences. I know a convicted stalker. One who has done jail time for it. Pete's obsession with me reminds me a lot of that person. HiLo48 (talk) 06:38, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

October 2013

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for making personal attacks. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 06:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. So the Wikipedia community would prefer to have an incompetent, irrational POV pusher editing Wikipedia rather than me. OK. HiLo48 (talk) 07:24, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anybody ever said that. The community has said "regardless...every editor deserves an environment where they are not belittled or personally attacked". You know as well as anyone that there are proper methods of dealing with edits/editors that you feel are performing incompetent, irrational, or POV edits ...and none of those permit personal attacks ES &L 08:34, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen any "proper" method that works. Pete/Skyring has been stalking me, against explicit instructions from the community, and posting POV-bullshit for years. Collingwoodwhatever has been demonstrating incompetent, irrational POV-pushing for years. Both have done just that today, and experienced no consequences. The community is happy to have them, but not me. Great community. HiLo48 (talk) 08:54, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This block isn't about the behaviour of the other editors involved here, it is about the personal attacks that you made, as noted at the ANI discussion. If other editors have caused problems, they may be sanctioned for those separately, but that doesn't affect the fact that you violated the no personal attacks policy. This would be a good time to read WP:NOTTHEM if you haven't done so already. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:14, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bullshit. You say they MAY be sanctioned, but they aren't, are they? That's a pointless platitude. So what's the point of ME trying to make this a better place? It's actually always my goal. And clearly not yours. Because "Pete/Skyring has been stalking me, against explicit instructions from the community, and posting POV-bullshit for years. Collingwoodwhatever has been demonstrating incompetent, irrational POV-pushing for years. Both have done just that today, and experienced no consequences. The community is happy to have them, but not me." You really need to look at the total sequence of events here, over the years, and not just the naughty words today. While that's the easy thing to police, and the most common approach by Admins, it will never make this a better place. Don't worry, this isn't really an attack on you. I'm just expressing my total frustration at the appalling justice system we have here. Incompetents, stalkers and POV pushers effectively have free reign, and someone who really cares about this place and shows his frustration gets silenced. It happens all the time. Personally I couldn't give a fuck about a block. It just reinforces my view of the appalling way this place works. So I feel stronger. And I have plenty else positive to do with my life. But I do want Wikipedia to be a better place. Pretty sure you and the other Admins don't really, based on the evidence of what you've all chosen to ignore. All you care about is rude words. Other crap can continue forever in your view. That makes this a far worse place. HiLo48 (talk) 09:44, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further, if Admins had done their job properly and eliminated the perpetual bad behaviour (albeit no naughty words) of editors seemingly incapable of learning correct editing procedures, such as Collingwoodwhatever and Pete/Skyring, none of today's problems would have occured. In some peoples' eyes I overreacted, but if there had been nothing to overreact to, Wikipedia would now be a much better place. While Admins think an overreaction to bullshit is a bigger problem than the bullshit itself, there probably isn't a place here for me. HiLo48 (talk) 10:06, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I dont' see any RFC/U about either of the 2 editors you mention, and although I don't monitor AN/ANI as much as I used to, I don't immediately recall any recent filings there on those editors either. Admins cannot randomly show up like Batman seems to do. Unless you filed a complaint, how does anyone know there's a real problem. You're the only person with the power to prevent your own over-reaction ... by bringing poor behaviour to people's attention, admins can help prevent the bullshit that leads to it. You can't blame others if you didn't take the necessary steps. Now, if you can SHOW me a diff where you specifically told ANY editor to stay off your talkpage (it sure better not be in an edit summary), and if they have returned for any reason OTHER than to notify you about an AN/ANI or other administrative filing, I'll pick up that mantle on showing WP:HARASS on your behalf ES &L 10:48, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've already said many times and in many places that I won't report people at AN/I. It's not a place of justice. It's a place where all the haters get a chance to pile on and abuse an accused, with no consequences for lies and bullshit. It's happened to me. I don't want it to happen to others. Admins saw bad behaviour from the others today, and did nothing. And I really can't be bothered finding that diff you request. It's true. Pete/Skyring knows it's true. You'll notice that he hasn't denied it in all the bullshit today. Just kept on stalking. If Justice requires ME to go to the trouble of dredging the past because someone else can't behave, then forget it. HiLo48 (talk) 10:58, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK ES&L, I was sitting here bored, and found this. Believe me now? Will you block him forever? The stalking has been going on forever. HiLo48 (talk) 11:14, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HiLo48, if you have evidence you want to submit about the other editors involved here, in the form of diffs etc., then I would be happy to copy across your post to ANI so that others can scrutinize it. I would also be very interested to look at such evidence myself, and I may act on it if I find it compelling. You're the best-equipped editor to comment on this situation, seeing as you have been so closely involved with it, and your insights would be valued. Just because you are blocked doesn't mean that people won't take into account what you have to say. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But I have to depend on the good will, interest, and preferences of someone who has already, in my view, looked at this in a very shallow way. As I've already said many times and in many ways, I have a busy life and don't have masses of time to keep digging up dirt on others. I don't really enjoy it either. and my attitude to how things are dealt with at ANI should be obvious to anybody. If you won't look wider yourself (there's plenty of evidence), I might as well give up now. HiLo48 (talk) 20:18, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RfC/Us are designed to uncover dirt. You can't expect admins to jump in, without previous experience with editors and articles and all their intricate ins and outs, and figure it all out for themselves. RfC/Us may be toothless by themselves, but they can also be stepping stones toward sanctions, so that an admin is given the opportunity to look further than just at the various obscenities thrown around. Drmies (talk) 20:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure the point is the two cases you describe (POV editing and abusive commenting) aren't or should not be connected as the only possible alternatives. Being abrasive is a personal choice not connected to content debates. Personally I though this outcome was inevitable, but feel free to call me a stalker or to swear at me and call me smug. I actually feel a sense of either sadness or pity, I'm not sure which as I feel you will either refuse to change or leave wikipedia and I feel Wikipedia would be poorer as a result. Obstinacy is admirable, but only to the point it becomes counter-productive. --Falcadore (talk) 09:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I don't need sympathy. Wikipedia does. HiLo48 (talk) 09:47, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And now I see on ANI that the two above mentioned hypocrites, Collingwood... and Pete/Skyring the Stalker, who both aggressively condemned me at AN/I, and got me blocked, now don't want me blocked. LOL. Talk about irrational! And people want ME to report others at ANI! No way I'll inflict that kangaroo court on others. HiLo48 (talk) 10:47, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You will forgive me writing here HiLo48, but I notice ES&L's comment above "I don't immediately recall any recent filings there on those editors either..." Are you referring to filings at ANI? You would surely recall, ES&L, that I raised the issue of the tendentious editing of one of these (above named) editors at ANI less than a month ago? You must recall that you asked me to stop commenting at ANI because you felt it was making the situation with the editor worse. So, a complaint has been filed and there remains an unresolved problem with the contributions by one of these editors - arguably his editing appears to be the catalyst for this situation. I do think an opportunity to help that editor (monitoring, mentoring etc) was missed a month ago Nickm57 (talk) 12:23, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nickm57. So we have Collingwood26 already identified as a blatant POV pusher, but allowed to continue, and I get into trouble for overreacting to his ongoing bullshit, while he continues to be allowed to stuff up Wikipedia. We have Pete/Skyring, from effectively the same political stable, instructed by an Admin to stay off my Talk page, and he repeatedly breaks that rule, continuing to stalk me all over Wikipedia. Sorry folks. There's no way I can promise to be nice to those irrational bigots. If you look at the ANI thread you will find I was not the only one to find Collingwood's thinking processes incomprehensible. We have rules about editors needing to be competent. I sincerely believe they both fail that requirement, and I cannot promise to pretend otherwise in future. I have called both these editors out on their POV crap before, and they can't deal with it without trying to get ME into trouble. Silencing the enemy, I guess. I cannot possibly be expected to put up with continuing nonsense from those two. If the Admins allow them free reign, and block me, what's the point of me sticking around? HiLo48 (talk) 12:57, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Irrational bigots, hypocrites ... stuff up Wikipedia; continued nonsense; ANI is a place where all the haters get a chance to pile on and abuse an accused, with no consequences for lies and bullshit; incompetents, stalkers and POV pushers effectively have free reign; I do want Wikipedia to be a better place. Pretty sure you (Stradivarius) and the other Admins don't really, based on the evidence of what you've all chosen to ignore. All you care about is rude words. Other crap can continue forever in your view." HiLo48, if you wish to constructively discuss this issue, or request an unblock, please do so here on your talk page in a civil manner. The discussion tone you're using is tendentious. I don't wish to make this sound rude, but with due respects to your situation, I have to mention that I shall revoke your talk page access if such tendentious talk continues. Please take care. Regards. Wifione ^Message 15:05, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would stop if what I wrote above wasn't true. Extensive experience tells me it is. Many have agreed with me. You're welcome to try to convince me otherwise. Your post reads more like one more interested in silencing possibly genuine criticism than in truly making Wikipedia a better place. Situations like this need Admins with a far more open mind and an interest in broader investigation than in just preventing the posting of words they personally don't like. Cases like this are never simple, no matter how much you would like them to be. HiLo48 (talk) 20:18, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But really, this is all just code for "I was provoked", or, to put it in schoolyard lingo you'd relate to, "But he started it". What you say about other editors may well be perfectly true, but (a) all you're willing to provide is your complaints but no evidence, and (b) that is not the issue that led to this current ban. The issue that led to this current ban is your calling another editor "you fucking moron" et al. That is never OK, not here, not in RL, not anywhere. No matter what the (claimed) provocation may be. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:36, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And to continue the school-yard theme "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me". So long as admins continue to ignore the competence issues surrounding certain editors here and worry more, because it's easy, about a few bad words instead, by editors that actually do make a great deal of constructive edits, Wikipedia will continue to be ridiculed and justifiably so. This, despite the efforts of those of us actually interested in building the encyclopaedia. Sanctions such as HiLo48's excessive one month block only serves to further the interests of those that either by intent or sheer incompetence seek to (and actually do) disrupt the encyclopaedia. At most HiLo48's actions deserve a slap with a wet trout. I am utterly disgusted with the way this block has been imposed on an editor that really does add a lot of value to the project. The admin concerned should be ashamed. - Nick Thorne ^talk 21:08, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

... with the way this block has been imposed on an editor that really does add a lot of value to the project. That's not how it works. We can't deduct all the good stuff (of which I'm sure there's plenty) from the infractions and come up with a net "good editor" or "bad editor" rating. Editors, and human beings generally, have to take responsibility for each individual action; otherwise, the courts would be saying "Oh, as this is the first time you've ever brutally murdered anyone and have led a reasonably law-abiding life otherwise, we'll let you off with a warning this time". Huh? No, I don't think so, do you? Well, that's pretty much the gist of your argument. HiLo, for all the good he does, steps on way too many people's toes in the process. He has no time for those who don't see things his way, and in a collaborative project like this where consensus rules the day (and not "My way or the highway"), that is fatal. I do agree that a month seems excessive. Maybe it's a good thing he'll have some time to think about his general approach. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can make someone else feel happy or sad, which is literally the only thing that matters in this stupid world." Couldn't resist. Two wrongs don't make a right. Once Hilo48 understands that personal attacks are not a proper reaction, he should be unblocked and allowed to continue editing. And stop piling up the bad faith accusations - I don't think anyone here wants to damage Wikipedia. 209.255.230.32 (talk) 21:44, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are definitely some who want Wikipedia to reflect their own, somewhat extreme political views. They may not see it as damage, but most of us surely do. If it's repeated, and supported by blatantly bigoted and irrational argument on the Talk page, with never a negative consequence, I will probably overreact again. HiLo48 (talk) 23:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the above comments Nick Thorne. And Jack, yes, I overreacted, no question, to appalling editing from an editor who probably shouldn't even be allowed to be posting here. There's are many good reasons to prohibit incompetent, POV pushing editors. The provocation they create is obviously one of them. We claim we do prohibit such behaviour, but if they don't use naughty words they effectively have free reign. If Wikipedia really had enforced its rules on competence and POV pushing in Collingwood's case, I wouldn't be in this situation. I'm not perfect, and will probably for the rest of my life continue to react to bullshit in ways that some here don't like. But if that bullshit shouldn't even exist on Wikipedia, I can't feel too bad about it. And you made a comment Pete/Skyring is fond of making. You suggested that I have trouble with people I disagree with. Not true. I can deal with any political view, as long as it's presented according to our rules. Repeated, undue, irrational POV-pushing is what tends to trigger my overreactions. During last year's US presidential election I was watching both Romney's and Obama's articles for vandalism. I was accused by supporters of both sides of being a supporter of the other. Now, I did happen to like the policies of one of those men much more than the other, but I was very proud it wasn't apparent. I've removed a lot of vandalism from Tony Abbott's and Liberal Party articles since the election, and I'm certainly a fan of neither. So, different views are fine. Persistent, irrational POV pushing isn't. HiLo48 (talk) 23:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HiLo, I'll have a look, in the next hours/days, at the whole situation to see if a carefully phrased unblock could be granted. If you like. Drmies (talk) 23:10, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. there's a lot of people here want me silenced because I call them out on their POV psuhing, so good luck with that. I must also say that my frustration continues, with lots of talk over at the ANI thread about what to do about Collingwood and Pete/Skyring's ongoing rule breaking, WITHOUT blocking them, as I have been. I am reinforced in my view that naughty words are seen by too many here as a worse crime than persistent irrational, incompetent POV pushing and stalking, BOTH after multiple warnings. WTF DO they have to do wrong to be blocked? Say fuck once? HiLo48 (talk) 23:18, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See, I don't even know any of these people, so I can't really judge whether there's really a conspiracy against you whose goal is to shut you up. If you think I care more for naughty words than for other things, you know as little about me as I probably do about you--but at the very least that should tell you that your generalizations are incorrect. I didn't see that earlier thread (one can't see everything, and this is not a paid position) but I will have a look at it, if you like.

Up to you--you can maintain your "stupid admins always defend et cetera and simply block the ones who et cetera", and you will not be proven wrong, because who would lift a finger for you? Why would I? Or you could think that there's two sides to every coin, that maybe you're not always correct about the hopeless inefficacy of the system, and that maybe there would have been more productive things to say than "fuck you", and take that chance (the chance that you might have been at least partially incorrect). I'll leave it at that. Enjoy your evening, Drmies (talk) 23:39, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it may not be productive to swear, but it seems that nothing else is either. The provokers are still active. I overreacted to frustration. My frustration will obviously continue for reasons I've outlined above. I get blocked. Real, repeat disrupters don't. In fact, Admins go out of their way to find ways of managing them without blocking. I don't get it. Why the difference? Why should I not be frustrated? HiLo48 (talk) 01:06, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You could ask an admin to look into it, giving them some links and some information and stuff like that. Drmies (talk) 01:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's too much like hard work. I'll probably just take a holiday. That'll keep the POV pushers and Admin hypocrisy out of my sight for a while. As I said above, the community doesn't want real attention on such trouble makers. It obviously doesn't know what to with do them.

Sure thing. But don't blame the community when it's you who is not helping me out, and don't blame hypocritical admins when I was just here on your talk page asking you three times (if I'm counting correctly) if I can help you. North, surely you can see what I was trying to do here. Enjoy the holiday, Drmies (talk) 03:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. And maybe my comment is not useful but felt I had to say it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:08, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hardly feel like being part of this place when the POV pushers and stalkers are allowed to keep going with no penalty. It's not a very pleasant thought being around them. At least Pete/Skring seems to have at least temporarily got the message, again, for the 28th time, to not post here. Sorry, but that man really is obsessed with me. And Wikipedia just tells him to stop it, and when he doesn't, just tells him to stop it again, and when he doesn't, just tells him to stop it again, and..... As for Collingwood, just not a rationally behaved person. Couldn't possibly predict what he'll do next. HiLo48 (talk) 04:42, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've had the pleasure of working on and off with HiLo48 on and off for about 4 years and we disagree on about 98% of everything. While I would consider most of the accusations / observations regarding HiLo48 here to be accurate, I consider the issues to be much more minor than others consider them to be. HiLo48 may rip people a new one but they do not mean people harm, do not engage in subtle viciousness, and do not "go after" people. I'd much rather have someone with nothing up their sleeve rip me a new one than deal with the much more clever viciousness and meaning harm to people that is commonplace in Wikipedia. I 'spose that that may not be relevant to the wiki rules, but those are my thoughts and I felt I should say that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in the same boat as N8000. This is really quite remarkable, even more so because it involves several admins for whom I have a great deal of respect. I suspect much of this might have to do with HiLo48 offending the American sensibilities of some who aren't used to language that we Australians consider ordinary casual vernacular. "You fucking moron" is about what I'd expect to receive if I got a pub trivia question wrong. I'm surprised this edit (to which that comment was in response) didn't elicit something more. That sort of political POV OR shouldn't be welcome here at all. It's worse because the author seems not to understand what is/was wrong with it. So HiLo made clear what was wrong with it in no uncertain terms. The author's response to being told (by an admin) that he was both wrong and at 3RR? "You are all picking on me!" What could HiLo have possibly achieved (for this project) by template-messaging an editor like that (again)? His talk page includes a note from me earlier this year when he was edit-warring over patently stupid things. He obviously hasn't improved his attitude since then and the edit-warring continues. One editor edit-wars (again) to include obviously problematic POV edits and is allowed to continue (nay, encouraged!) while the editor who called a spade a fucking spade gets blocked. I think the ship is pointing in the wrong direction on this one. Stalwart111 04:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jeez. Now, FFS, we have a little love fest between Nil Einne and Stalker Pete in the ANI thread, saying I shouldn't talk about Pete here if I won't let him respond, and that Pete was just mistaken when he ignored his ban on posting here. If he WAS mistaken, it's absolute incompetence. The ruling was unequivical. Why Nil Einne believe's that crap from Pete is beyond me. And I have every right to talk about him here. I was asked to not fucking engage with him (nor he with me), and don't want to anyway. Discussions with him are absolutely pointless. He thinks the problem is that I disagree with his politics. I don't give a fuck what his politics are. What I disagree with is him letting his politics massively influence his editing here. But he cannot comprehend that. He also thinks pathetic platitudes about me seeing others points of view in my heart, and other such bullshit, will somehow make me a better person. Sorry, that ain't me. So Nil Einne, you are being sucked in. You don't know the whole picture. Note how quickly he posted in that thread which, of course, had nothing to do with him. THAT'S the problem here. He is an obsessed stalker. He cannot help himself. It was NOT an innocent mistake that he posted here. It was a breach of Wikipedia rules, one of many, and the Admins here just gently warn him, yet again. I do not understand his gentle treatment. HiLo48 (talk) 06:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and the obvious irony, of course. They're complaining about me discussing Pete the Stalker and not allowing him to respond, all at ANI where I can't respond, because Pete and his other overtly right wing mate Collingwood got me blocked! HiLo48 (talk) 07:13, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with this block, as I say at ANI, and feel the length is startling. Suggest waiting a day or three and then file a brief and contrite appeal for a "time served" unblock or a reduction. It took me a long time to come around to respecting you, but you do indeed have my support and respect. I understand the frustration, believe me. Just try to cool down before posting, ol' buddy. My best to you and yours, Jus da fax 08:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jusdafax. I appreciate your suggestion. But right now I don't have the mental energy to play here against the incompetent, irrational POV pushers and the Admins who defend and support their bullshit. They've won this battle. They've worn me out. I'm also far too honest submit a "a contrite appeal". I don't feel contrite in the slightest. Might see you guys in a month. Can't be sure right now. HiLo48 (talk) 01:01, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Anyone want to have a word over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention. It's an area I've tried to contribute constructively to in the past, but right now, for obvious reasons, cannot. HiLo48 (talk) 01:01, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hope to see you around and stronger than ever when the month is up HiLo. Ever thought of running for Admin btw? Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 15:24, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Yes. Trouble is, if I'd been an Admin for the past couple of years I would have permanently blocked both Collingwood and Pete the Stalker, for incompetence, repeated POV-pushing, and ignoring warnings (actually a sign of incompetence), and done the same with several other Admins for bigotry, trigger fingers, and failing to do their job properly in not blocking Collingwood and Pete/Skyring. Pretty sure I don't fit the ultra-conservative mould that most Admins seem to belong to. I simply cannot conceive of the clique within the Admin class who I think are a big part of Wikipedia's troubles ever accepting me. HiLo48 (talk) 21:00, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Start an RfC/U, or two, when you come back. My offer above still stands. And please don't put me in that "ultra-conservative" category: if you mean that in the way Western politics means it, I take that as an offense, pal. Take it easy, Drmies (talk) 15:21, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, the "ultra-conservative" wasn't meant politically. And I did use the word "most" rather than "all". It's more to do with moral values, such as clearly thinking that one swear word does more harm here than ongoing displays of incompetence, disruption, POV pushing and defiance of warnings. That's certainly not the case where I live. An occasional, well placed bit of swearing is quite common from most people, in all circles. But even politically America is far more to the right than most other western nations. The more right wing of Australia's two major political parties is well to the left of the Democrats on most issues. As for an RfC/U, no way. Pete the Stalker, who has found me a thorn in the side of his POV pushing for years and so wants to get rid of me, set up one of those about me a while ago. Again, all it did was provide yet another platform for like minded editors to throw more shit at my name. Nothing came of it. It's another bad tool. I guess it's inevitable that Admins will want to believe that the tools they sought the right to use do the job well, but they don't. HiLo48 (talk) 21:10, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that you care about Wikipedia. Unfortunately, we are resource limited in many ways, and administrators are one of them. The active admin:editor ratio is 635:120,065 (about 1:200). So the in depth, looking deep into background causes of behavioral disputes I see you advocating for is rarely going to happen. It's not true that "AN/I doesn't work" anymore than it's true "AN/I does work" ... it's in large part a matter of framing and small part serendipity. If an editor opens a thread that has few words, many diffs, and the diffs are righteous they're likely to get a reasonably good response.

Part of the Wikipedia experience is interacting with others, which inevitably means it's a political environment. You've taken the time to learn how do arbitrary things like sticking <ref> </ref> around sources for articles. Why "ref" instead of "source"? Why angle brackets instead of, I don't know, pound signs? I don't know, it's just an arbitrary thing someone made up long ago. Think of political niceties as part of the same arbitrary things. Things you just learn to do so you can focus on continuing to improve Wikipedia.

On the large scale, admins are very reluctant to encourage third party unblock requests because of the additional volume of stuff that would have to be waded through; most of the requests would not be as reasonable as what's currently present for your case at ANI. Better if you just post the unblock request: you already have most of the elements:

You apologized on ANI for the bad words -- with perhaps too much qualification, but apologized nonetheless.
You already pledged not to swear, regardless of how silly you think the Wiki stance on that is. So, to make your life easier (if you want), you can just copy / paste:

{{unblock|I apologize for the swearing and will try to refrain from doing so in the future ~~~~}}

NE Ent 12:13, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't rushed to reply to that. You see, I don't trust myself should a situation like the one in question arise again. It seems that the community already sees that it probably shouldn't have arisen this time. So I was reacting to something that shouldn't have happened. But it did. And I see no evidence that a similar thing can never happen again. And I cannot guarantee that I won't again feel incredibly frustrated, and again tell someone what I really think. If the community could guarantee that long-established bigots will not be allowed free reign, I would feel more confident in making such a commitment. But I doubt if it can. And the evidence is building. I know your suggestion contains wording that says I "will try" to not do it again. And I would try. But in the incident that started all this, as soon as I slipped up once in a situation that shouldn't have arisen, I was instantly blocked. No discussion. And no consequences (yet - days later) for the provocation. That editor is still free to post his bullshit. If the community won't/can't stop him (and others like him), am I free to call him what I really think of him, in language of my choice, and then say "I tried"? No. An editor like Mr. Stradivarius will again block me, feeling fully justified. So, thank you for the suggestion, but I don't see it as a solution on its own. Get Collingwoodwhatever out of the way, completely, forever, find more effective and rapid ways of eliminating other incompetent POV pushers, and it may have a chance of working. HiLo48 (talk) 11:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Auntie Bonita, AO

Bonita Mabo is a tiny stub at present. I'd like to get up to at least DYK level. Your thoughts? BTW, you are a ratbag. --Shirt58 (talk) 13:22, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the compliment! I just clicked on the three references in that article. They're good. I'd be delighted to help extract some of the facts from there about Bonita, but right now I'm in no position to do so. (I assume you've seen the above thread.) The community would rather have incompetent, irrational POV pushers active than me. My naughty words apparently offend conservative Americans far more than the former. Good luck. It looks like a worthy project. HiLo48 (talk) 00:12, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BTW - The bloke who got me blocked, Collingwoodwhatever, might want to help. He's a white supremacist. Doesn't think we should call people like Bonita Australian. Just the kind of editor that's always welcome. (Don't be in any doubt. He is!) HiLo48 (talk) 00:14, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HiLo, could you provide a diff supporting the above assertion please, or delete it? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 19:06, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. This is where Wikipedia's justice process become incredibly frustrating. I suppose one could argue about the definition of white supremacist, but how about looking at the whole thread Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive788#Collingwood26: concerns about POV-driven editing and extreme talk page posts, where he was let off with a warning, as usual. One diff I quickly picked up from looking at that thread is here. Don't have time to look for more of his nonsense right now. It should have been picked up by Admin as a fundamental part of his character ages ago, and had him thrown right out of Wikipedia forever. That thread obviously points to other trouble, but because he apparently doesn't ever swear, he gets the soft treatment. No itchy trigger fingers for him. His views should not ever be part of this place. Such bigots NEVER change and NEVER help here. HiLo48 (talk) 21:29, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to ask for diffs etc; you'll make this case in a more formal venue, I assume. But "it should have been picked up by an admin"--WTF? You think we screen new editors? Come on HiLo. You keep claiming not to have time or interest in productive things like RfCs or whatever, but you got time to throw out conspiracy theories. Sheesh. Drmies (talk) 01:20, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While we're on the topic, that was pretty ridiculous. Drmies (talk) 01:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My simple point was that this person had already been taken to AN/I. More than once. I pointed to one of those threads above. No action came from it. Again. Just acceptance of a promise to be good in future. Again. Promise broken. Again. Warned. Again. I've already said I see little point in taking people to AN/I. It's not a court of justice. It's a court of prejudice and piling on of lies and abuse, combined with trigger fingers for naughty words, but persistent procrastination by Admins for "civil" (i.e. non-swearing), but ongoing disruption, incompetence, and irrational behaviour. (As far as I'm concerned, such behaviour is very uncivil, but I seem to be a lone voice on that matter.)

And you say "that was pretty ridiculous". Do you think it's acceptable? I say it's not. It's bigotry. It's racist. It's stupid. It's a display of irrationality and incompetence. Do those sins EVER matter here? Or just naughty words? HiLo48 (talk) 02:40, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some other editors at ANI have helpfully collated the evidence and provided some diffs which certainly look convincing. Seems the consensus at ANI is moving towards at least a topic ban for Collingwood26. I'm sure that won't convince you that ANI is ever worth a wet fart, but for myself I do believe it eventually gets there. It does require people to trawl through contributions and provide diffs but when they come it's much easier to take decisive action than when faced with generalised charges like "so-and-so is a racist/incompetent/POV pusher." Such charges are harder to make stick because they often require quite a bit of repeated evidence before the case is clear. Disruptive editing such as repeated swearing and the associated culture-bound assumption that "it it's OK in my culture, it ought to be OK in yours" is easier to spot as the examples tend to be more obvious. But it's almost never a single case of bad language except in the most egregious and aggressive cases. Blocks such as yours don't arise out of nowhere but only after repeated and escalating warnings. You may not like it (clearly you don't!) but you can't be surprised by the block. The question for you and the other editors is: can you each learn from your experiences? Anyone under a sanction which expires either learns not to repeat the behaviour (in which case the sanction never happens again) or they don't learn (in which case the sanction is likely to be repeated.) Which sort of editor are you? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 20:46, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I've learnt a lot here. I've learnt some things about Wikipedia and some things about me. I CAN control my temper and frustration in normal, run-of-the-mill content disputes, but not in ridiculous situations like the in which I was placed. I was blocked for over-reacting to a situation you are now agreeing is not acceptable on Wikipedia. I don't trust myself to not do the aggressive swearing again in similar circumstances. As for me not providing enough details, that's a cop-out. Collingwood26 has been seen at AN/I before, in some cases quite recently. The crap that I've seen him allowed to continue posting began long before that, probably on the day he started here. Any serious investigator would have had no trouble finding examples when looking at his later, formally reported misdeeds. It didn't take me long when I looked. I detest taking cases to AN/I myself because of the way I've been treated there myself. Until you can control the pile-on of bullshit and lies that happens against non-mainstream editors (of which I am one) it won't ever be an attractive option. It's bullying of the worst kind in modern times. The freedom provided by the anonymity of the web to attack an enemy unethically and dishonestly. So, as I've now posted in both the threads above and below, I'm no Superman. I was confronted by misdeeds clearly now identified as unacceptable, not being handled effectively by the community. My frustration was at both. And the situation is STILL not resolved! (So my frustration still exists!) Similar events will obviously happen again, at least partly because I try to stop the bad postings here. I cannot guarantee that I will not again over-react when put in that or a similar situation. I'm just human. (And from a culture where swearing simply IS part of many people's behaviour in such situations.) Had my swearing been towards a well-behaved editor, all criticism of me would have been valid. It wasn't, and it wasn't. My swearing was directed towards a very poorly behaved editor the community was doing nothing about. Just delivering warning after warning after warning after warning after warning after warning.... Obviously pointless. Where was the escalation in Collingwood26's case? Then I swore at him. Now something might be done about him. So again, what you insist is unacceptable (the swearing) is actually, again, making this a better place. You haven't convinced me of much at all. All I know is that the trigger fingers are for naughty words, no matter what the circumstances, and the far worse, incompetent, irrational racism can insidiously go on forever. But those naughty words can actually achieve good things. I know you don't want that to be true, but it is, isn't it? (I didn't do it deliberately this time, but yet again, my view on what works here has been vindicated.) HiLo48 (talk) 22:56, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interaction ban between Pete and me - Thank you

Thank you for that Drmies (and the others who contributed to the discussion.) I'm delighted with that outcome. In fact, I thought we already had an interaction ban in place. I was certainly trying to act on the basis that it was the case. Pete/Skyring removes negative comment from his talk page within hours of it appearing there, so I have no idea how to look back at where I got that idea from. I've certainly asked him to ~~piss off~~ go away from my talk page many times. HiLo48 (talk) 03:01, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I guess that means that I have to acknowledge that Admins DO, at least at times, get it right. (I need a smiley emoticon here!) HiLo48 (talk) 03:03, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Easy call. Drmies (talk) 03:06, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, if you had asked them that, and they refused to accede, you could have asked me to enforce. I would have. You just can't assume that we know everything all the time--well, not me anyway. Drmies (talk) 03:16, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I was always just hoping for reasonable behaviour, but... (if I complete this sentence I may be breaching the ban.

) HiLo48 (talk) 03:21, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, don't finish that thought. Mind you, there are exceptions; please see WP:BANEX. Drmies (talk) 03:28, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit to having a little concern about how to manage this. Pete and I tend to watch the same articles in the Australian political sphere. On several occasions I have reverted what seemed to me to be quite inappropriate changes he has made to articles. That's obviously been at least part of the trigger for his concerns about me. I feel almost certain that I will again see such edits from him, i.e. edits that seem to me to be quite inappropriate changes to articles. If I do see such changes, what do I do? HiLo48 (talk) 03:36, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem. Well, you do nothing--nothing at all. That's the rub, and I wondered a bit about the jubilation. Interaction bans are good for defusing situations, but they're not good for article quality. You can't even discuss their edits (and vice versa, of course). We can only hope that you two are not the only ones editing those articles... Drmies (talk) 03:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm. Yes. Not good for article quality. So there's no process at all? Forget the individuals involved here. That just doesn't make sense at a global level. Have I ever mentioned feeling frustrated here? (Rhetorical question.) That seems guaranteed to increase such feelings. HiLo48 (talk) 03:53, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever, I'm happy to give it a go. If things progress well I'd like to hope that the ban could be dropped or at least made less formal in the future. HiLo48 (talk) 04:20, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a brilliant solution, but an intermediary or third opinion when you two have to interact over an edit? A neutral third party can then decide and all you have to do is put your arguments up. No real interaction necessary between you and Pete. Solution? Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 09:53, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's the way it's typically worked for years :-) It allows editors to focus on the content by removing interpersonal spats from the conversation. Suggestions need to be policy-based, sourced, and they'll be judged on merit. There's little leeway, however, for snide inline comments, so always re-read before clicking "save page" or else blocks for IB breaking will be quick...even if you self-revert moments later ES &L 10:18, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite happy with that for the future. As I said above, I thought we DID have an interaction ban in place, so I don't feel much is different, so long as some process still exists for content disputes, should they occur. Let's hope they don't.

HiLo48 (talk) 11:07, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're confusing me as much as the other editor did when he felt that "stay off the talkpage" was only temporary. As per WP:BAN, unless the community has had a discussion specifically related to an WP:IBAN and it's been enacted accordingly ES &L 11:37, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about any confusion, but I don't quite know what you mean. Want to ask me a question or two to clarify? (I don't want to try to guess.) HiLo48 (talk) 11:42, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What made you think that a formal interaction ban was in place? Can you link to a specific AN/ANI discussion where one was !voted on and enacted? From what I see, there wasn't even an informal IB in place ... just a note to one editor to stay the hell off your talkpage ES &L 11:58, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. I didn't think there was anything as formal as is now in place. In fact, I didn't even know such formal arrangements were a standard part of Wikipedia. I just knew we had an "informal" ban, based on my repeated requests to the other editor, reinforced by an Admin's instruction. I felt that was a good arrangement (except that it ended up not working). You may not call it that, but it's what it felt like to me. It was what I sought, so it was good. What's now newly in place should be safer on the interaction front. Obviously I'm pleased with that part of the new arrangement. Hope that clears it up. HiLo48 (talk) 17:36, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

Ok. You may also want to review the proposed wording for conditions of unblock that are currently under discussion at ANI in the same section. You'll very quickly see there are some obvious ... and hidden ... benefits to you. If the community accepts those, an admin will propose them to you as condition of unblock ES &L 17:57, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that still bothers me for the reasons I explained above, in my post time-stamped 11:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC) in the section titled October 2013. The action that led to this block WAS a personal attack. It DID contain swearing. I did over-react, to repeated and persistent ongoing garbage from someone I still see as a racist, irrational, incompetent POV pusher. And he is still free to edit. Conversation there suggests that many think he shouldn't be free to edit any more, but he is. I was blocked for over-reacting to a situation that should not have existed. Right now I am still incredibly frustrated that my blocking was virtually instantaneous, and the community still seems to have no idea how to deal with insidious, malicious vandalism from editors like Collingwood... Repeated, ignored warnings don't count as "dealing with" them. They achieve nothing. I am no Superman. I hate seeing such damage to Wikipedia and feel almost certain that I will again post things seen as unacceptable here if he (or others) are allowed to continue posting rabid nonsense. In summary, if the community cannot stop Collingwoodwhatever in particular, and does nothing about such behaviour in general, I find it very difficult to accept those conditions. I could not trust myself to keep them. The simple reality is that Wikipedia allows racist, incompetent bullshit, but not swearing at such nonsense. If that situation continues, I probably don't belong. HiLo48 (talk) 18:18, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Omg stop calling me names and putting words in my mouth, I have never abused you yet you keep on attacking me. I am a useful contributor to Wikipedia, get over yourself.--Collingwood26 (talk) 23:59, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stay away from this user's page Collingwood- the place to comment, in full is ANI. Otherwise it just looks like you are being provocative again. Nickm57 (talk) 00:14, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HiLo, I smell a consensus to unblock you. Mind you, any next time that you go over whatever are perceived as limits you'll be blocked again, most likely. You know I can't define those limits, but I also think you know what they are, whether you like them or not. On that note, have a nice day. Drmies (talk) 03:57, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Drmies. I should really have to say no more than I've already said on this page. Although it's obvious that not all have read what I've said here, which is very sad, since, unlike Collingwood, I haven't been able to contribute to the discussion about me at AN/I. (I think I might do a better job than he has.) And there's a massive diversity of views there. It's still obvious that some think that my abuse is a far worse sin than the racism and incompetence I was addressing (and that the Admin community had virtually ignored for two years). The massive diversity of views about Collingwood and his treatment is also significant. Anyone who says policy is clear, and decisions therefore unarguable, is off their rocker. I know Admins have to have faith in the processes they've asked for the right to police, but a little observation must show the doubt and uncertainty involved. Everyone seems to be sucking up to Stradivarius, telling him he does a wonderful job, but he did a marvelous job of quoting me out of context, thereby completely misrepresenting my views on some matters. For those who haven't read this page, it was a very misleading thing for him to do. Since I was unable to participate there, it would have been more ethical for him to quote me in totality, or direct people here to read my comments. Misrepresentation is one of those many sins in Wikipedia for which there seem to be no consequences (so long as it's done without swearing). Anyway, you HAVE paid attention to my comments. Much respect for that. The unfortunate views on display from some Admins when talking about me have just reinforced my view that the system is broken, but I haven't given up on trying to make it better, despite some obviously wishing I would. HiLo48 (talk) 06:49, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I misquoted you - that wasn't my intention. I've added a longer quote to the ANI discussion. 24 hours late is better than never, I hope... — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 08:14, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for that. I do put a lot of thought into (most of

) my posts. It's the whole of what I want to say that's important to me. And sadly, misrepresentation, misquoting, quoting out of context, etc, are tools used by some of those POV-pushers I seem to encounter in my battles against damage to Wikipedia. (Not you, of course.) I know it's harder to police than obvious swear words, but dirty tricks in arguing is, IMHO, a very serious problem here. It's a form of incivility too. One can be very uncivil without ever uttering a naughty or insulting word. And it's very rarely policed. That frustrates me a lot. HiLo48 (talk) 10:36, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HiLo, I stuck my neck out more than I intended; there is a bit of a backlash that I didn't see coming. That doesn't mean you owe me something, but it does mean that there will be more than one editor looking very carefully at you in the future, and given the discussion on ANI that's valid, I suppose. Now, I'm still not totally happy with matters: I had hoped for a more clear statement from you that those comments were out of line and that you'll try your best to keep it civil. I've argued repeatedly that there was a context (here and in other high-profile incivility cases), but the community is less interested in your disclaimers than they are in a promise from you to tone it down.
I also insist that you cannot expect editors to dig up every relevant fact; as I said before, that's what RfC/Us are for, and it's you should lead there, not just point to a few comments here and there. You pointed out some, to your credit, but I think you could have handled this better on the front end, just as Stradivarius will no doubt argue that I didn't handle it well on the back end. Be that as it may, I am not going to reverse my unblock since I cannot justify that, but I do feel a kind of responsibility to make sure that my unblock doesn't remain controversial (you should see my Inbox). Take it easy, and don't criticize Stradivarius too much: I disagree with them, but they did what they felt was right, as did I. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:16, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe an RfC/U could work, but my experience is very negative, just as it has been with AN/I. An RfC/U was opened on me. All it achieved was the delivery of another platform where several of those I've upset, by trying to prevent their POV-pushing disruption to Wikipedia, piled on and repeated all the things they didn't like about me, some of it true but irrelevant, much of it blatant lies and misrepresentation. Just as with AN/I, there was no way I could effectively respond to all the nonsense being posted, and there were no consequences for the liars and misrepresenters. I don't believe anyone else should suffer the same unfair situation, hence my reluctance to raise an RfC/U on others. Oh, and there was no formal outcome from the RfC/U. Yet another failed process. Am I wrong in basing my views on that? The other problem I see right now is the massive disparity of views held and loudly proclaimed by Administrators here, both on me and on Collingwood (who's still free to say and do what he likes!). It's very difficult to get a clear guideline on how to operate. I guess I could just give up on policing the vandalism on potentially controversial articles. But someone needs to do it. I really am confused as to how I should operate here. As for Stradivarius, I had a concern. I explained it. He took corrective action. I'm happy with it, and told him that. If he has further concerns I'm quite happy to discuss them. I actually wish he would. I would welcome that. HiLo48 (talk) 20:02, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HiLo, while I wouldn't have done the unblock Drmies has performed, and I disagree with his reading of the consensus, I've argued at AN/I that now it has been done, we should go with it. Drmies has stuck his neck out for you and I'm not going to be the first to take a swing at it. He's your good cop at the moment - please don't abuse his trust.

I on the other hand am your bad cop. I do believe there was a clear consensus that, whatever the provocation your attack was disproportionate and must not be repeated. So I'm here to lay out as clearly as I can what I will and will not block you for in the future. We have to go hypothetical here: my take would be that "You are a fucking moron" is both a direct attack and swearing. "That edit was fucking moronic" would be an indirect attack and swearing. "You are a spectacularly stupid editor" would be a direct attack but with no swearing and "That was a spectacularly stupid edit" would be indirect and not swearing. I will block you for edits like any of the first three examples, but would not block for the fourth example. The block would be for 2 weeks next time. Provocation will be no defence. This is not a standard I would apply to a first-time offender, but you have had many warnings and so a different standard applies.

Your swearing is not the prime problem, it's the personal attacks which are. But the addition of swearing adds an unnecessary level of aggression to an attack and damages the collegial atmosphere. It makes no difference to your target (in fact it probably makes them feel self-justified.) But it turns a tense situation into a hostile one and that's not good for other editors who don't come from your robust cultural background. You insist - correctly - that no one nation can impose its standards upon Wikipedia. Similarly, your standards that swearing is just a method of underlining your point are just that - your standards. You cannot impose them on others. This is an international, voluntary collaboration. Your right to say whatever you like needs to be balanced against the rights of others to edit in a friendly place where people respect one another even if they disagree.

You don't have to agree to or accept any of this. I don't expect you will. But the Wikipedia community has given both Drmies and myself authority to use some buttons to regulate how this place works; he has used his decisively and without worrying too much about whether his decision will make him popular. I reserve the right to do the same. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 00:01, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And this post exemplifies exactly what is wrong with the way a number of admins here choose to exercise the privileges they have been given by the community. Nothing occurs without context. So long as you choose to ignore the context in which an event occurs and choose to punish (and I use that word deliberately) only the person reacting to the actions of another editor who is actually damaging the project you will continue to perpetuate an environment in which incompetent and/or unscrupulous and/or malicious editors can continue their activities without consequence. Even worse, these malignant editors manage to get those trying to stop them blocked with the acquiescence of compliant admins. Maybe you could try climbing down off your high horse and have a look at what is really going on and start using your admin powers for the benefit of the project rather than blocking productive editors. Maybe you could try blocking some of those POV warrior that in reality caused all this mess, but which some admins seem strangely willing to keep merely slapping on the wrist but never actually take any real action against. - Nick Thorne ^talk 01:33, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nick, I have great respect for Kim Dent-Brown and I don't think we're in disagreement here. Kim is not on a high horse anymore than I'm on a low rider. If you would read more carefully you'd see that Kim is here to help, not to chastise or threaten. I don't think you realize how many feathers are ruffled (and understandably!) when a block is overturned. But the other side is that you seem to expect us to figure it all out--to jump into the middle of a shouting match and with a bit of sleuthing see through to the heart of things. It's not that easy. But worse, please don't suggest, as I think you are, that "certain" admins (the one who blocked HiLo in the first place? Kim?) are acquiescing in any kind of collusion. I will grant you that too many admins tend to block with a checklist of bad words in hand (and I am not saying that that applies to this block), but don't push the point.
Now, HiLo had a few interesting things to say below, and that's where we should turn: a way forward. Let's be productive here and see what needs doing. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 03:44, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I have inserted a section header to mark out the change of topic to the ongoing discussion about HiLo's unblock etc, plus I have changed the indentation on HiLo's comment below, because I think he was replying to KDB not me. Of course feel free to reverse either or both of those if you feel it appropriate.

Drmies, with respect, my criticism is about the way this whole process has concentrated on the symptom, not the disease. Sure, HiLo over-reacted and was not very civil and deserved at least a wet trout for his efforts, but I get very disheartened when I see the discussion at AN/I concentrating on HiLo's admittedly intemperate comments and completely ignoring the environment in which they were made. This does the project no good at all and the likely effect of the continued application of that misalignment and inequitable application of admin priorities serves only to drive productive editors away. I know that I for one have been reconsidering whether I am prepared to continue to participate under the current environment. I am not the most productive editor here, I mostly do gnomish work and patrol vandalism in my areas of interest, but for every one of me that speaks up about these things there are probably ten who think them and leave the project, probably judging that its just not worth all the Wikidrama. - Nick Thorne ^talk 04:23, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nick, if you don't mind me saying, I think you're flat-out wrong that the process was out of sync. The most obvious issue was the NPA - which draws a lot of attention, and which led to a block. When you go to ANI, you now see three very distinct subthreads - two of which deal with the symptoms. Just like when I have a cold, I like a nice Neo Citron to help me sleep so that by being well-rested and well-hydrated, my body will recover, sometimes you have to take the most difficult (and obvious) part of the incident out of the equation. I was actually considering how to codify the way things worked out on ANI because it was being done the right way ES &L 10:19, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ESL, no, I don't mind you saying. However I respectfully disagree. HiLo was blocked almost instantly the issue was brought up an AN/I yet Collingwood is still unblocked, days after it was made abundantly clear what he had done and was continuing to do. The consensus to site ban was very clear before the apologists showed up. I do not see the same fervour to deal with this problematic editor that was used to block HiLo with what I can only describe as indecent haste. Despite all the revisionist talk it is apparent that the difference is that HiLo was being punished because he upset the language sensitivities of some delicate little flowers. There is an enormous imbalance here and it is just not good enough. HiLo should not have been blocked with such haste, if at all and Collingwood should be thrown out of Wikipedia promptly, it is well past time. I am not an admin or I would have done the job myself days ago. - Nick Thorne ^talk 11:12, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Just had an edit conflict, but I'll post my comments anyway] You know Kim Dent-Brown, I agree with almost all of that. I don't think my personal attack on Collingwood was a good thing to do. It was an irrational outburst born of massive frustration with two things, his incompetent, irrational, POV-pushing, racist editing, AND the fact that it had been going on for two years, despite previous visits to AN/I. I know people say that I should have taken it to AN/I myself, or opened an RfC/U myself. I've explained above, several times, why I hadn't done that, and am reluctant to do it in future. Even now I suspect that if I did, I would instantly cop postings of the style "HiLo is just a troublemaker himself", and far worse. AN/I is hardly a place for quick and effective justice (unless one swears

). (The thread on Collingwood is a classic example. Far too slow. Far too many opinions.) I'd be interested in your thoughts on my concerns about that, and my experience as the subject of an RfC/U. Can it be better handled? And BTW, I don't want to try to tackle the problems here by swearing. I certainly didn't plan to when I woke up that day. And my repeated comments about swearing being an effective way of getting the right level of attention on troublemakers should be read as an observation about something true and very unfortunate here, not my plan of operation. Trust me. I don't want to be the subject of all this sort of crap again. It's punishment enough. Hence my question above. What are your thoughts on my concerns about the effectiveness of AN/I and an RfC/U for the kind of situation I found myself in with Collingwood? [Now that I know others are looking, I'd welcome a response from anyone!] HiLo48 (talk) 01:48, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks HiLo, I'll accept the invitation to talk about the future rather than dwell on the past. I share some, but not all, of your dissatisfaction with the way management processes such as ANI and RfC/U work. But I'm minded of the quote about democracy from Churchill (I think): it's the worst possible form of government apart from all the alternatives. Yes it is slow and for some (not all) who are complained of the process is bruising. The same could be said of the court system and its probably not possible to have any dispute resolution system that does not at times feel painful to those in it. But let's look at what happened in the recent complaint brought by Collingwood26. We haven't yet reached a final outcome but I think we are nearly there now. You are free to edit with no community-imposed parole and no limits on your scope of activity. Pete has been told in no uncertain terms that he must stay off your talk page, permanently, under threat of a block. Collingwood26 is undoubtedly going to be sanctioned, either with a block, a topic ban or a site ban. Now, I'm the first to agree that the process by which we got here was not pretty but I think the destination is about right. Question is, could we have got here quicker?

We could, had we not first had to go through Collingwood's complaint about your attacks. Nick asserts above that this is all we have done at ANI, which I think is a misreading of the events. Most of the thread started by Collingwood has discussed Pete and Collingwood, not you. But if somebody (you, maybe?) had brought to ANI the kind of material that eventually was brought together as a result of the boomerang, we'd have got to this result quicker and without a week-long block for you. I'm afraid it does require the editors who think there is something wrong to go hunting for diffs. It was diffs that eventually turned the tide against Collingwood26. We have no paid police here. No volunteer admin is going to go hunting for evidence. ANI will work better (not perfectly, but better...) when complainants submit succinct complaints, backed by diffs and then leave it to the community to draw a conclusion.

You've been brought to ANI a few times and had an RfC/U raised on you. I don't expect you to enjoy that. But action has been taken on only a minority of occasions. This time, a block was imposed which had overwhelming consensus. Not for the duration, but certainly for the block, despite a couple of voices opposing it. But at the RfC/U a clear outcome was established - I remember because I closed it myself - that you had done nothing actionable. That wasn't a 'no result'; that was a very definite result, and not the one your opponents hoped for. Other ANI complaints have resulted in no action against you. Again, a definite result.

The ANI process usually works quickly and decisively. If you watch it as I do, you'll see most complaints are resolved in about three exchanges of edits. Ones like this one are vey much the exception although of course precisely because they rumble on for days, they occupy a lot of space and time. But in that, this complaint has been untypical. In its result however I'm reasonably happy. For the future, if you have complaints about an editor then bringing them calmly to ANI along with good diffs is going to work better than calling them a fucking racist moron (or whatever). We might ultimately end up in the same position as we are now, but it'll be quicker and more painless for you. You're right that there are some editors who will not take you seriously at ANI but there are more who can recognise a change of approach when they see it. For my part, what I will do differently is that should I get an approach like that at ANI, from you or anyone else, then I'll do my best to read the diffs and come more quickly to a decisive conclusion.

Sorry for the TL;DR nature of this. Here's hoping for calmer waters in future. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 08:34, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(I like these emoticons!) HiLo48 (talk) 09:30, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 11:51, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Like Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 12:45, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw your post above about whether I have further concerns. The answer is, well, sort of. I would have liked you to give a direct assurance that you wouldn't make personal attacks again, even if faced with the worst POV and IDHT editing. My views are very similar to Kim's here: ANI may not be perfect, but if you try and make it work then it usually gets to the right result eventually. On the other hand, making personal attacks is ever helpful. Even if you're certain that the editor you're attacking is a net negative and should be blocked, doing so makes you look worse for reacting to them, they make the other editor look better when their behaviour is compared to yours, and it also sours the atmosphere for everyone who reads the page. And the attacks make it harder to see who is really at fault. (Or perhaps I should say that it makes it the fault of both of you, although for different reasons and to different degrees.) For this reason, I wasn't really satisfied when you said that you couldn't promise that you wouldn't make personal attacks again in a similar situation. But now that you are unblocked and the thread has been closed, this is mostly moot.

There has been enough drama this time that I don't see myself blocking you again in a hurry, but from the posts here by other admins it looks like any future personal attacks will not be taken to kindly. But apart from that, I really hope that you will consider using methods other than personal attacks in the future, as I think it is just generally a much better way of dealing with situations like this. Have you read WP:GLUE, by the way? It is my favourite Wikipedia essay, and I think the strategy it outlines is something you would benefit from trying. Also, if there are any other things like the misquoting issue that you would like me to take action on, please {{ping}} me - I'm always willing to correct myself if I've done something stupid, and pinging me will allow me to see your request quicker. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 05:48, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe there's some sort of language difference here (which is very possible), but I don't feel willing "to give a direct assurance that (I) wouldn't make personal attacks again" because I don't trust myself. I didn't wake up on the day I offended planning to make a personal attack. It came out of frustration, with two thing, which I've explained thoroughly above. It wasn't a rational, planned action. I certainly don't intend to make such a post again. I hope that's enough. HiLo48 (talk) 05:59, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, after two or so posts on Collingwood's page that you never should have made in a million years, he's now had his talkpage access blocked for lashing out at you ... that was poorly planned by you (or well-planned, depending if one does not AGF). You should be ashamed of that ES &L 02:40, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't plan to post there any more. And I actually removed his most recent outburst very quickly, with no comment, before almost anyone else could have seen it. I didn't want him to get into any more trouble. And please remember, I didn't report him at AN/I. He reported me. HiLo48 (talk) 02:56, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Without offering any views on how we all got to this point, but having regard for all of the above etc etc etc ... Welcome back. Euryalus (talk) 02:36, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HiLo48 (talk) 02:40, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Monty Python

This is a bit off the track for that one page, so I'll ask you directly: Have you seen that old Monty Python skit where they dress up like Aussies and sing about famous philosophers being drinkers? I get the beer, the khaki shorts, the exaggerated accents. What I don't get is (1) the fuzzy things dangling from their broad-brimmed hats; and (2) calling everybody "Bruce". Apologies if I've asked this before at some point in the distant past. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:20, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, got a copy of that sketch on my hard drive. It's corks hanging from the hats. It's a cliched image. They do, to some extent, keep the flies off your face. As cliche they are also an indication of how many bottles one has emptied to collect that many corks. The Bruce thing is apparently built on the cliched view, at least to Poms, that Bruce is a common name in Australia but not in the UK. No idea if it's true. HiLo48 (talk) 07:33, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blimey. I should have known. We have an article on it! See Cork hat. HiLo48 (talk) 07:46, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, that makes total sense. The question arises, then, as to whether the Pythoneers are making fun of the Aussies, or making fun of the stereotypes. Probably a bit of both. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:08, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of both I suspect. Another aspect was that the Aussies were all academics, of rather weird kinds admittedly, but that was perhaps a recognition that, despite the Ocker characters, there is another side to what makes an Australian. HiLo48 (talk) 09:06, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've commonly heard that you're all Bruce, call your women Sheila, and own barbeques...ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 10:09, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We call women sheilas. It's a generic word for woman. As in "Jeez, will ya look at the tits on that sheila over there". Her name doesn't have to be Sheila. In fact, the speaker probably neither knows nor cares what her name is. Doesn't everyone own a barbeque? (I built my own.) HiLo48 (talk) 10:24, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There was a man a while back in the UK who sued for racial discrimination in the workplace as he was greeted every morning by "how's Sheila" and constantly asked about his barbeque. I don't even know if the guy was Australian, but he certainly won his case. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 11:05, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"This here is the wattle. The symbol of our land. You can stick it in a bottle. You can hold it in your hand. Amen." [3]

You have Cher in Australia right? Not just ABBA as an influence?

Your Soccer (football) conversation is killing me inside. Do you have Cher in Aussie land? Voila. Enjoy. That's how i'd want my car washed. You can watch with our Sheila while you put more shrimp on the barbie =P ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 23:05, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aussies never put a shrimp on the barbie. We prefer prawns. couldn't care less about Cher, or ABBA for that matter. - Nick Thorne ^talk 03:32, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Too right. No shrimps here. Just prawns. It was an ad to attract Americans to our land, and the script had to be written in American, not Australian. We understand American, but we know that not many Americans understand Australian. No Cher either, well no more than any other foreign entertainment, but I understand that Abba had a higher level of success in Australia than elsewhere.

I was lucky that the stereotypes from Priscilla were accurate enough to make most of that post work then =D.

How's them there crocs biting today? I'm running low on my stereotypes now unless someone mentions Steve Irwin... Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 09:16, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah Priscilla. Great movie. It caused surprisingly few waves among the conservatives and bigots. I guess it did come out of the city that has hosted the Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras for the past 35 years. HiLo48 (talk) 02:56, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's an American copy but it's not as good as the original. Although Wesley Snipes is quite good. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 09:20, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions

Sorry, I didn't mean to post my last comments to the WP:FOOTY thread - I saw you had asked for only the article talk page to be used so I copied them there, but didn't realise I had saved at WP:FOOTY... This is getting very confusing... Number 5 7 11:45, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. It was an understandable error on your part given the perpetually increasing confusion created by one of our obsessed Australian soccer fans. He has a habit of creating new threads all over the place to try to win arguments. I recently deleted five(!) threads from this very Talk page of mine, all started by him. I wish there was a practical way of silencing such well intentioned, but obsessive and vexatious editors. HiLo48 (talk) 22:56, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

Thank you.

LauraHale (talk) 12:31, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment layout

It doesn't matter, but for the record my comment at WT:Banning policy#Seeking clarification did not "miss the point". There is no way for me to add a comment to a thread like that except by what I did—I was not replying to you. You are right about the silliness of Wikipedia warnings, but mandatory sentences aren't always a good solution either. You have done everything right (except interposing a colon-indented commented above Drmies which broke his use of "**" to indent his reply under mine!), but I recommend leaving it for others now. Johnuniq (talk) 04:17, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a fan of mandatory sentences either, in just about any situation, but in this case the warnings are achieving nothing. Some real consequence is essential. I should not have to put up with years more of the same crap. I kept my end of the bargain. Even accepting the IBAN was a sacrifice on my part, because it wasn't me that was doing the stalking, but I saw it as a way of achieving some peace at last. It didn't. It lasted four weeks! HiLo48 (talk) 04:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trust me. Things are different and a repeat of what occurred recently will not be tolerated. Johnuniq (talk) 05:38, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that right now you mean all the good intentions apparent in that statement, but given the long history of this saga, excuse me for feeling just a little sceptical. HiLo48 (talk) 06:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

Sorry for not notifying you; it honestly didn't occur to me, since I'm more concerned with Ymblanter's behavior than yours, but you're right in that you should've been notified anyway. You're also right that we should close it: I doubt anything good is going to come from that discussion, and I regret commenting in it already. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:54, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Not blaming you in the slightest. Just reinforcing the point I made earlier in the post-closed-thread conversation that such carryings-on are really quite unethical. HiLo48 (talk) 21:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relative popularity of the Socceroos versus Matildas in people's interests

Google tracks search volume for teams. This shows the relative number of searches for Socceroos, Matildas, and australia national soccer team. The relative volume of searches for the men's team and women's team was the same in April 2004, June 2004, July 2004, September 2004, November 2004, December 2004, February 2005, March 2005, April 2005, May 2005, August 2005, November 2010, December 2010, February 2011, April 2011, December 2011, January 2012, March 2012, April 2012, May 2012, July 2012, August 2012, January 2013, February 2013, April 2013, August 2013, December 2013. The Matildas topped the men in August 2004, July 2005, September 2007, December 2008, and July 2011. --LauraHale (talk) 12:13, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[4] [5] When only Australian searches are factored in, the differences change. In August 2004, the Matildas had a 66 while the Socceroos had a 4. From December 2005 to April 2006, the Matildas beat the Socceroos based on interest. Again, the Matildas beat the Soccers from July 2006 until June 2007, August 2007 to pretty consistently going forward with one or two months where the Socceroos had more Australian interest.--LauraHale (talk) 12:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This academic paper says that soccer is the most popular football code in Australia for women. For men, not so much. --LauraHale (talk) 13:05, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This chapter from a textbook published by the University of Oxford Press says that soccer in Australia has traditionally been for women, ethnic immigrants and homosexuals. This counters the narrative of the sport being exclusively male (and white).--LauraHale (talk) 13:14, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the "success" of the A-League, this source shows they have had financial troubles in the extreme, losing AU$20 million in the past year on top of the AU$27 million they lost during the 2011-2012 season. --LauraHale (talk) 13:16, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This blog post also does a good job at explaining the subtle sexism involved by defaulting non-gendered to men, while othering women.--LauraHale (talk) 14:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Related to this, I did an interview on Wikinews. It can be found at n:Wikinews interviews academic Steve Redhead about Australian women's soccer. --LauraHale (talk) 13:09, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also this is potentially useful.--LauraHale (talk) 22:16, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	You complete me. Evanh2008 ^{(talk\|contribs)} 23:33, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A Barnstar for you

HiLo48 for being a total contentious pain in the arse and not understanding the point of evidence vs. facts --Orestes1984

Thank you heaps. Being a pain in the arse to tendentious editors who won't accept consensus is one of my specialities. Have you read WP:BLUE yet? HiLo48 (talk) 05:43, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

+1 Wear it as a badge of honour HiLo =] ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 09:21, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I will! HiLo48 (talk) 09:25, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read don't drink the consensus koolaid yet? Essays are not hard and fast rules they are rough guidelines at best about how we should interact with eachother as editors in a perfect world which are not actual wikipedia rules or guidelines.

Also read, It's easier to find a citation than to argue over why it is not needed --Orestes1984 (talk) 14:26, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you had that big adventure and travelled to the other side of the Barassi Line to see what it's really like there yet? You don't need injections. Can probably get a JetStar flight for under $100. Alternatively, or in addition, you could actually show good faith and believe what other editors tell you. HiLo48 (talk) 20:16, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Once upon a time - the moral of the story

Ha ha, you got caught. You were basically manipulated into calling them all nutters. You need to be more subtle when calling a nutter a nutter to his face. Something like 'I think most fanatical gun lovers have a deep seated psychological problem, that justifications to keep doing what you love is not the same as sensible reasons or imminent threats. and that even though you understand that in a society where everyone is armed you might have more reason to be armed yourself, its better when very few people are armed so getting rid of most of the guns especially the ones designed soley for killing lots of people would make us all better off. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. so get rid of the people who want to shoot other people and stop them from getting guns! But of course that doesn't finish the debate. Don't get me started on that dicky constitutional amendment of theirs which says you can have guns as part of an organised militia. Carrying a semi automatic handgun under your jacket is not an organized militia.Mdw0 (talk) 07:17, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Couldn't agree more. I still occasionally have a look at the relevant discussions, and am amused at the goings-on right now at Talk:Gun control‎. The latest section is tellingly called "Was this article ever any good?" It's a place where Wikipedia's normal policies on achieving consensus just don't work. I suspect things are worse than ever right now because their President is taking a strong anti-gun stance (by US standards). Some of the gun lovers are probably terrified that something rational might happen. (You know, it's funny. In re-reading that before hitting Save, I noticed that, although it's theoretically a global topic, I've written exclusively about the problem in the USA, and it seems perfectly normal.) HiLo48 (talk) 23:42, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then there's an obvious problem with systemic bias. Which is something you might use in your battles with ITN. Wikipedia is supposed to recognize and combat the systemic bias shown by rich white males in the First World. Even though Australia does itself display such bias, and is overrepresented in Wikipedia compared to other cultures, it is a way to battle the Never heard of it' bias from rich white Americans.Mdw0 (talk) 13:06, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft submission Museum of Australian Democracy at Eureka was accepted

Museum of Australian Democracy at Eureka, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:16, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		For your valiant efforts at Talk:Genesis creation narrative Rwenonah (talk) 12:22, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IBAN

Hey HiLo, this response is in violation of your interaction ban with Skyring. I don't know if your subsequent self-revert was because you realized that Skyring had started that thread or not (I can't tell from your edit summary); if this were to happen again, by accident, please indicate that more clearly. So, I am forced to warn you: don't do it again. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:11, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Sorry. I forgot that he had started that thread. Like most threads on that topic it had gone appallingly off topic, and I just responded to one very wrong post from an edit warrior there. And it is becoming very difficult now that Pete/Skyring has decided to spend more time on a topic where I've already spent a lot of time. He also claims that, having earlier seen things the same way as I do, in line with a multiply established consensus, that he now disagree with that position. It could be just coincidence, but it's an amazing one.

I don't expect you to have a detailed understanding of the background to that "Soccer in Australia" situation, but do you have any suggestions on how to manage the very poor behaviour of those editors persistently and irrationally opposing consensus? HiLo48 (talk) 21:52, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HiLo, let's not talk about Skyring anymore. You'll just have to leave it be: one of the side effects of an iBan, as a wise person said in one of those discussions (it could have been me, I forgot). No, I have nothing to offer on the topic of the talk page, except for the same thing I told your counterpart, in the "goose" section on my talk page. Besides that, it's the same as always: if consensus is laid down in an RfC (or something like it), it's always easier to enforce it and to denounce the disruptors. And as I told him also, I have no desire to get involved (see, I'm aiming for consistency) with yet another conflict over something I just don't understand. So, nail down an issue or conflict, formulate a neutral RfC, get a consensus to have things done your way (cause if you're at all like me, you're right), and then sit back and let the poor admins enforce it. No more talk of Xxxx/Xxxxxxx, OK? Drmies (talk) 23:59, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quite happy with the first sentence there. My comment yesterday was entirely my mistake. I won't try to justify it in the slightest. On that other matter, there have been three neutral RfCs over the past two years, all resolved the same way. A handful of editors unhappy with that repeated result are using a range of unacceptable tactics (many just plain stupid, dishonest and irrational, IMHO), in many places, to continue fighting that fight. I am constantly abused. In desperation, I tried a visit to AN/I a few days ago. It was a complete disaster. All the usual problems arose. People said "HiLo! He's ALWAYS in trouble. This should be a boomerang", without looking at any of the evidence. An uninvolved Administrator abused me, obviously because I highlighted some poor, POV pushing behaviour of his around a month ago in a totally different area. (It's dangerous taking on unfit Admins.) And because the AN/I visit was a failure, the badly behaved editors at Soccer in Australia now feel even stronger. My question above wasn't asking you to become involved. It was asking, where else can we go? HiLo48 (talk) 00:26, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HiLo, one of the problems for me is that I have no idea what any of it is about. I don't know what "association football" is (is that what I would call "voetbal"?, or why it is or isn't "Aussie rules football". Or what you all call soccer and what you call football, if you call anything football at all. I can't figure out what y'all's actual problems are on Names for association football, and I couldn't figure out what the content/editing dispute was in that ANI thread you filed. I don't know which RfCs you're talking about or what they supposedly decided--you say that you are attempting to uphold those conclusions and I think Orestes agrees, but puts it in different terms ("ownership", somewhat predictably; whether accurately or not I can't judge). That makes me a pretty dumb non-Australian, of course, and not the person who should dive in the middle of something that got this heated. Can't you find an Australian admin who's not been previously involved in any of this mess and who won't need to spend a week studying the subject matter. I agree that the ANI thread got derailed pretty quickly by possibly hasty judgments--but I skipped it because I simply didn't understand what was at stake.

OK. If there is an RfC, with a well-formed conclusion, and that consensus is being disrupted, I suppose you could post a note on WP:DR or WP:AN, to ask for enforcement of that RfC. That's not what you did at ANI: you basically asked for action to be taken against an individual for personal attacks, and given your track record--rightly or wrongly--you'll quickly get pot vs. kettle remarks. But ask, diplomatically and concisely, for an RfC to be enforced (with specifics about the RfC and the offending edits), maybe at AN, and you'll probably get a different kind of result. I hope. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 03:19, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Thanks. I'll think about diplomatically trying that path. This IS a messy situation, and I wouldn't expect someone from outside Australia to quickly understand. I won't even ask you to try. In fact, Australia is so geographically large, and some residents so little travelled even within it, ignorance of how things are in parts of the country they've never visited is one of the big issues. I find it amusing that you say "I don't know what "association football" is". That's one of the other issues at question. Without trying to get you involved any further, I'll just say that some editors who absolutely hate the name "soccer" want us to use "association football" as a "compromise". (You see, the name "football" is already taken by other sports in Australia, just as in the US.) My response has always been that almost nobody knows what "association football" is. Thanks you for reassuring me of the likely truth of that view. (But I won't quote you on it.) Right now, let's move on.

HiLo48 (talk) 03:42, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the kind of football is that Peyton Manning plays, that's what I call football these days. But maybe I've been here too long, in the US that is. When we're in the front yard, my kids determine what I'm talking about by gauging the difference between "voetbal" and "football"--the "v" is voiced, and the "oe" rounded. They still ask me to confirm, though. Drmies (talk) 04:19, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The clear and unequivocal answer can be found at Football in Australia that there are multiple sports known as football, what is clearly being missed here repeatedly is the derisive nature of the word soccer, its associations and connotations, both here and abroad. While it is clear that soccer is unambiguous and I have no problem agreeing with that point, it does not represent the current official name of the sport given by the orginisation that administrates the sport of football in Australia. These changes were made for specific reasons, much of which should not be needed to be repeated. There is a certain lack of understanding going on here which suggests that just because you and your mates call it soccer that it's perfectly acceptable that everyone else does. As I will repeat, while it is unambiguous, it is derisive, and at times derogatory and refers back to a period, where the game was played, for the sake of the foreign admin here.... by sheilas (men who are too much like girls), wogs (a derisive term for Southern Europeans) and poofters (homosexuals) said in context of the book name chosen by Johnny Warren. There is no place for soccer in this country, it is almost as derogatory and racist as calling the game wogball. There were numerous valid reasons raised by the FFA for changing the name of the game including these. One of the main reasons why the name was changed to football was "growing up" and casting off these derogatory terms.

There has been multiple accepted consensuses regarding changing the name to association football, including in New Zealand, where users are unhappy with the term soccer, but cannot use the term football. The term soccer as I will repeat, also does not represent the current term used by the governing body, so on the grounds of historical accuracy it is no longer relevant to the sport. I do not see what is so hard about all of this to understand --Orestes1984 (talk) 18:58, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would also suggest you do not continue a discussion about a user that you have an interaction ban with as that is beyond being unreasonable --Orestes1984 (talk) 18:58, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)Are you allowed to be here?_Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 19:06, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no iban going on between myself and HiLo48, these are general comments, if anything is awry here it is mentioning a user that actually has an iban which I was taken to AN/I for, the administrator involved here should remind Hilo48 not to comment about a user they have an iban with. Leave it as it is, this is not talk page stalking when it involves wide range implications that could affect everyone. If Hilo48 wants to discuss mediation or arbitration it should be done in the proper place on talk:soccer in Australia. We should look at the facts though that despite the bickering, I have not implemented any changes that go against consensus, in fact quite the opposite. I've edited in a way that maintains consensus and also spoken out against those who haven't. Despite all the accusations I am a reasonable person... I suspect though why we are all avoiding arbitration is because it is likely to return an even less desirable result for all parties involved. Talk:Soccer in Australia --Orestes1984 (talk) 19:15, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been specifically asked not to post on this talk page. Whether or not you are subject to an IBAN has no bearing on that. You are required to take heed of a user's request to stay away from his/her talk page except for necessary notifications mandated by policy. If it were up to me, I would block you for this. If HiLo48 takes this to AN/I I will support such action. - Nick Thorne ^talk 21:08, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You mean, that with the exception of one from me and one from you, the last NINE edits on this page have been by him? Only mildly obsessive... _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 21:15, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is simply an inappropriate place to discuss these matters. I have not commented in a way that is any way inflammatory, your unnecessary contributions may however be seen as such. As I have stated, if HiLo48 wants to discuss where to go next with soccer in Australia it should be done on the appropriate talk page and not in secrecy here on his userspace. Furthermore, there is no rule stating that any user must edit in one sitting as I have previously stated. Please remove yourself from this discussion unless you have anything of use to contribute to it that is not inflammatory in nature. --Orestes1984 (talk) 21:25, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In secrecy? LOL. Please go away. HiLo48 (talk) 21:39, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)You have been asked to stay away from this talk page here and here. Both time you immediately responded with yet further edits. Again here you are and when reminded by two uninvolved editors that you have been requested to stay away from here your immediate reaction to to post even more. This is certainly uncivil and probably disruptive. So don't post here again, even to answer this. If you do, I see an enforced Wiki-break in your future. - Nick Thorne ^talk 21:43, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are not an authority here, and I am sick to death of people like yourself trying to impose some sort of authority here, we are all equally underneath the administrators, of Wikipedia here. Your unnecessary comments have inflamed this situation once again. I have nothing further to add other than what has already been stated, you should not have entered into this discussion in the first place. If anything is going wrong here it is the fact that HiLo48 is breaching his iban with Pete which completely unacceptable behaviour. As I have stated if Hilo48 wants to discuss mediation and arbitration it should be done on talk:soccer in Australia as I have done with another administrator. --Orestes1984 (talk) 21:54, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neat trick that, taking 5 lines to add "nothing further than what has already been stated". A classic case of "being intoxicated by the exuberance of one's own verbosity". It's time for all unreconstructed egos to have a long holiday. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:13, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where do reckon I'd find the nearest ego reconstruction program? HiLo48 (talk) 23:43, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regular meditation ("it's not what you think") is an excellent starting place. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:46, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. That helps. Right now I'm heading out to finish building my new shed. That helps too. HiLo48 (talk) 23:55, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Hi, I noticed your comments on Soccer in Australia, so you might be interested in helping out. In many of the articles on soccer players some vandals have brazenly wrote the term "footballer", not the agreed term football (soccer) player. I have gone through the A - League players and changed it back, but obviously a lot more needs to be done. I am hoping you'll help stop this blatant vandalism. 60.224.160.185 (talk) 17:45, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 60.224.160.185 - please do not refer to these changes as "blatant vandalism" - such a description is appropriate for (e.g.) add random abuse/profanity or blank entire sections for no reason. Please assume good faith from other users. In addition, bulk changing of articles in the way you did encourages edit wars and is not the most efficient way to approach this conflict. Please hold off from doing so while discussions are ongoing. -- Chuq (talk) 05:56, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chuq - I will assume good faith with some of the newer IP editors, but I cannot assume it with the handful of established editors who persistently edit against consensus. That is simply bad faith editing. In other words, vandalism.

60.224.160.185 - where did you get the idea that the "agreed term" is "football (soccer) player"? The most recent agreement at Talk:Soccer in Australia/Archive_3 is that the game is to be simply called "soccer". Logically that would mean that the players should be simply described as "soccer players". If there's another agreement you're referring to, I'd be happy to see it. HiLo48 (talk) 06:53, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Football (soccer) was the agreed term about seven or eight years ago but that consensus seemed to disappear when the main article for the sport changed to association football. Hack (talk) 07:11, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Word to the wise

HiLo, there is no excuse for this edit summary. I didn't expect such offensive classist language from someone like you; I thought you were better than that. I blanked the edit summary because I find it fits the "grossly offensive" category; I'm sure you know what you said and I hope you won't repeat such crass remarks again. For the record: I come from a long line of poor farmhands and truck drivers, none of whom ever had enough money to attend a soccer game. Drmies (talk) 01:41, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Frustration again. I'll try to think of another possible explanation for that editor's behaviour. Sadly, we see a lot of similar stuff on Australian soccer articles. (Repeated reversions against consensus, no communication, etc.) It's hard to go far beyond incompetence as an explanation, but each time I suggest that anywhere I seem to get into a lot of trouble too. It's a hostile environment. I really wish a completely independent Admin could watch the whole area very closely for a couple of months, quickly and very firmly responding to unacceptable actions. HiLo48 (talk) 01:56, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I felt this was over the line. I hear the frustration but i don't think the edit summary was the way to go. Sportfan5000 (talk) 02:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How would you handle a situation where an editor repeatedly ignores my polite edit summaries and my polite comments on their talk page? I thought about putting something on the article's Talk page too, but decided it would be a total waste of time and effort. HiLo48 (talk) 03:04, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think a brief note at their talk page or the article talk page is the way to start, then if they refuse to listen just put "per previous discussion," or something similar. Sportfan5000 (talk) 03:08, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I DID put a note on their Talk page, quite early in the process. It was obviously ignored. Thought about the article talk page, but decided there was no way this kind of editor would ever look there. HiLo48 (talk) 03:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 00:02, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm concerned, yes--he did, so you may; I think that WP:BANEX allows it and if not, common sense should. I would just ask you to keep it cool and civil--I guess I should have asked Skyring the same thing. Sorry. Drmies (talk) 18:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. As far as I am concerned I have been completely civil with Pete/Skyring since the ban began, at least partly because I have not communicated with him at all. What triggered my question was his statement about wanting the personal attacks to stop. My question would be, what personal attacks? That read like a pretty obvious attack on me. As is so common with AN/I, an unsupported, unhelpful statement was made, and nobody else seemed likely to refute it, nor would there be any consequence for it. HiLo48 (talk) 20:15, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the real question is what that statement will profit him. I'll look at it to see if it needs remarking on. But it's not being refuted doesn't make it part of the record or something like that. Drmies (talk) 20:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Bieber RfC

If you have time and the desire to re-engage in the debate over legal issues and polls at the Justin Bieber article ....pls comment at Talk:Justin Bieber#RfC: Behaviour and legal issues Thank you for your time. -- Moxy (talk) 03:58, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm depressed. And confused.

I have an IBAN in place. Many thought the other party had breached it. It went to AN/I. After 12 days it was closed with no result nor explanation. I asked why, and was told that in asking I was breaching the IBAN. I don't understand. This place is depressing and confusing at times. HiLo48 (talk) 05:55, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The longer term goal is to get along politely enough so as to avoid disruption. If the other user persists in egging you on then reach out to the closing admin with a link to the thread and ask them for advice. In the closing note they were specific enough, "If either user skirts the boundaries of the interaction ban in the opinion of any uninvolved administrator or the community, they should be blocked, suggested block length for any offense is from one month to indefinitely. The usual exceptions to the IBAN applies, however both users should be cautious to avoid the perception of attempting to game the system." So everyone involved was given a last warning of sorts, even if they should have been justifiably admonished in some other way. IMO, just avoid them and let them cause their own destiny. Sportfan5000 (talk) 08:33, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely what do you mean by "everyone involved"? Does that include me? What about the disruptive contributions from Orestes1984? Actually, the way I see it, nobody was warned about anything, because posts defending the things I saw as bad, by editors such as Orestes. were not challenged. Suggestions that I was guilty of personal attacks were not challenged, nor refuted, as they should have been. This is a big win for the other party. AN/I is worse than useless. It supports, endorses and effectively encourages bad behaviour. HiLo48 (talk) 09:14, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)It is good for enforcing civility though YOU VILL BE CIVIL!!! See, that's how they do it. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 09:21, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

People who are here just to disrupt are sometimes really good at it, and playing others for saps. Just leave well enough alone, and reach out to that admin who closed the thread if things start up now that they stated that the IBAN parties have been warned a last time. In short, don't look for more interactions with that person, and if they seek you out, let others intercede. Sportfan5000 (talk) 09:18, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't answer my questions. HiLo48 (talk) 09:21, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As demonstrated by Sportfan above, some editors are unable to read a long but simple ANI section and extract the key features. The advice from the closing admin also suggests a lack of connection with the actual issue, but the rough has to be taken with the smooth, and that's the outcome at the moment. You will need to take care when commenting on the football/soccer topic, but that's doable. Johnuniq (talk) 09:31, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Simple question. What do I do when Pete/Skyring again starts a thread claiming facts that I have already refuted many times, which is what caused that AN/I thread in the first place, and as he did even in the past couple of days in the ANI/I thread? Can I post in a thread he has started? Can I post in a thread he didn't start but, where again, he makes a claim I have already refuted many times. If I cannot, he has won. HiLo48 (talk) 09:36, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HiLo, if you see any clear evidence that the ban is breached, let me know. By the same token, Skyring has complained about this thread here in which you mention him. I have asked, repeatedly, for admins to close that thread on ANI, and I'm somewhat embarrassed that I've defended the process to you a number of times, and here the process is clearly not working very well. Frankly, I'm a bit embarrassed also that my fellow admins weren't chomping at the bit to count a couple of comments and weight a few different proposals, and just make a decision. Anyway, Callanecc has just closed the thread, with a less strict verdict than I would have liked, but at least it's closed. My suggestion: be on your best behavior. Take it easy, Drmies (talk) 15:26, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have been on my best behaviour, for the whole duration of that thread. If the behaviour of others before and during that thread really was THEIR best, again, I'm depressed and confused. HiLo48 (talk) 16:53, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HiLo, I think you're reading a LOT of things the wrong way. First, Drmies does NOT say you were on poor behaviour during that thread - he simply says "ensure your own behaviour as you go forward is the best it can be - because then you'll always have the ethical leg to stand on; and don't take things into your own hands". You also are reading the close as "no action", which simply is not what it says: all parties were given one final warning to live by IBAN, and it was very clearly noted that Skyring had formally pushed the envelope. So, you actually got your way: there are more eyes on Skyring's actions from this point forward. I don't believe for a moment that you ever wanted nor expected Skyring to be blocked for his actions - they were dumb and provocative, but not blockable - the next ones, however, will be different. There's nothing to be "depressed and confused" about - and by the way, if you're ever "depressed and confused" about something on the internet, then you need to turn the internet off and rethink your priorities; Wikipedia is not life. Nobody died. D P 17:28, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem lies in the combination of my view that there was nothing wrong with my behaviour, and the repeated statement that ALL all parties were given one final warning. "All" includes me, surely, or my understanding of English is failing. What am I being warned for? HiLo48 (talk) 17:33, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. It was NOT a "warning"; it was a "reminder". D P 17:44, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Um. OK. I've already noted elsewhere that "warning" is one of the misused words on Wikipedia. Typically, miscreants are warned for doing something wrong, then they re-offend, and they are warned again, and they re-offend, and they are warned again, and they re-offend, and they are warned again, and they re-offend...... I wondered what it really meant this time. This time, in my case at least, it wasn't a warning at all. Maybe now I'm less confused, but still depressed about Wikipedia's appallingly useless mechanisms for sorting out conflict. HiLo48 (talk) 22:21, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria (Australia) article

Hello, I notice you edited the Victoria (Australia) article on 15 February 2014, quite rightly reverting an unexplained deletion. For other reasons I do think the subject paragraph should be deleted. The editor concerned has not provided a supporting reference for the information they added and the claim that the universities mentioned are "ranked highly among the world's best universities" is inaccurate - see Academic Ranking of World Universities 2013 - only the University of Melbourne could make that claim. I thought I would raise this with you rather than reverting again and maybe create the (incorrect) impression of edit warring. I would appreciate your comments. Cheers. Melbourne3163 (talk) 06:14, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I see what you mean. It obviously needs a source, AND a definition of what "ranked highly" means. Ultimately I guess it's really WP:PEACOCK language, and would be best avoided. HiLo48 (talk) 06:23, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. Should I go ahead with the edit or would you like to do it? Melbourne3163 (talk) 06:47, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Go for your life. HiLo48 (talk) 08:07, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks for your assistance. Melbourne3163 (talk) 04:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know.......

LoHi48? Another editor has asked some questions on his tak page. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:20, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. No idea who it is. There's was some earlier action above in the thread "Someone has been editing as LoHi48". Weird. HiLo48 (talk) 07:24, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given the recent issues, especially those surrounding soccer, some of this user's edits seem more than a little suspicious, as does the activity here. That said, the account was created in June 2013. Where you pissing off anyone back then? --AussieLegend (✉) 07:27, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You bet. HiLo48 (talk) 07:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

lol Timeshift (talk) 08:23, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)Ironically, the same people... ;) _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:15, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Among others. Getting in the way of ill-informed, POV pushers tends to have the effect of pissing them off. HiLo48 (talk) 20:21, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article assistance

Hey. I know goalball is not your sport, but I'm slow motion working on all the articles in this category. At the moment, I am stuffing the history of the team's competition and scoring history into the articles. (Hence the prose is kind of crappy.) Once done, I plan go back, find filler information about player backgrounds, background details on the team history, etc. I'd like to get the whole pile up to B status (possibly GA) in the next few months. If you have time, can you keep an eye on them and fact check them to make sure the sources and text match? Fix any obvious typos? That would be really helpful. Thanks. --LauraHale (talk) 18:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I watched some of the goalball at the Sydney Paralympics, and later got to know one of the Australian players fairly well, so I've got some awareness of the game. I'll stick some articles and the cat on my watchlist, and take a look when time permits. HiLo48 (talk) 22:27, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Beards/computing

Oh, do say you have a courdroy jacket, and/or at least one with elbow patches? --Dweller (talk) 14:19, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This got a good chuckle out of me. It's pretty close to my image of ya, HiLo. And I mean that as a complement, as a person with more than a few decades behind me! Jusdafax 22:17, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Nah, no corduroy jacket, Still got the suede one though. And the kids tell me that if I grew my hair and beard longer I'd look like Santa Claus, but apart from that... HiLo48 (talk) 23:38, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Australian sport naming rules

Could you possibly leave this area alone for a couple of weeks or until 3 March? Could you also on your return please not make arguments that depend upon WP:IDONTLIKEIT and similar? I can see why your recent adversary found that annoying. Others will also be warned. --John (talk) 22:09, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HiLo48, I suggest you hold off replying, as I was concurrently leaving John a message on his talk. NE Ent 22:18, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I say this without any judgement against you but I asked you as you are a big editor of that page. Maybe if you and User:Orestes1984 step back, other opinions will come in. In any case, the status quo of behaviour there is not an option. --John (talk) 22:24, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you blaming me for the status quo of behaviour there? I hope not. I certainly don't feel responsible. I was asked to change my behaviour there some time ago, and I did. I would have loved a formal thank you for that, rather than something that reads like a suggestion that my behaviour is still unacceptable. I'm still not convinced it ever was in the first place, but I DID change, and have ignored repeated personal attacks along the way. (Did nobody notice?) This artificial even-handedness from people like you is not a balanced approach. I have changed my behaviour in a decidedly positive direction. Others have got worse, yet a warning still comes my way. I don't respect that. In throwing a warning at me you are giving ammunition to the subject of that AN/I report. He will use it. He has done that sort of thing in the past. I have massive doubts about the effectiveness and fairness of the warning system on Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 22:34, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies: I see no evidence whatsoever of HiLo abusing anything.

Jusdafax: I came to see him as a valuable contributor. Imperfect though he is, I now defend him, sometimes to my own surprise, in large part because he has learned to be a better Wikipedian over the years, and I wish him the best.

As for me, do you seriously think I suddenly developed an interest in Soccer in Australia 'cause I actually care about what folks in a continent halfway around the world from me call a game no right thinking American cares about? NE Ent 23:43, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At least you've noticed that the issue is actually a naming one, rather than Admin John, who described it as a content dispute. I know there's a lot of text on that page, but if it's too much for an Admin to cope with, they should say so and withdraw, rather than silencing and seemingly criticising the innocent participants. HiLo48 (talk) 23:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) (to NE Ent) Just as not too many there care about our arguably insane brand of football. HiLo, reading back, I could have made my comments less "damning with faint praise" and I regret the wording. For me, it's been quite the arc from bitter enemy to friendly relations. I give you a lot of credit for adapting to the curious culture of Wikipedia. As for your antagonist, his warning was much more direct and final, and though I felt sanctions were called for in his case, I think he has been handled in such a way as to insure that should he continue, he is toast. Wikipedia isn't always fair, but this action is reasonably close, though I do find it odd that you are being asked not to edit the article for a few weeks and don't agree with that. But let's move on. I look forward to your presence in the years to come. Jus da fax 00:04, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did you get my point that by criticising me John has given more ammunition to Orestes for the future? Given that I was never even told of the existence of the AN/I thread, I'm not feeling too positive at all about this situation. I can't help but add one more name to my unofficial list of Admins I don't respect. HiLo48 (talk) 00:28, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John once stated mild contempt for sanctimonious pen-pushers like NE Ent who regularly lecture others, hang out at the noticeboards, but never apparently contribute anything of value towards the work we are doing here. It has not had any long term repercussions that I'm aware of. You can get people to look at another editor with accusations, but any wiki-savvy editors who have been around dispute resolution will judge for themselves. NE Ent 00:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ent, HiLo's point that he should have been notified about a major ANI filing is quite serious, however. And the fact that no admin bothered to check that is a concern, in my book. One thing HiLo and I share, we are touchy about being "dissed." When it's not even to our faces, that compounds the feeling of injustice. That's how I see it, anyway. Jus da fax 01:11, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I intentionally did not notify him when I posted the thread precisely because he did nothing wrong. It wasn't about him. NE Ent 01:15, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But, as is so common at AN/I, the thread gave yet another platform to the haters. It shouldn't have been about me, but it became about me. And as is also normal at AN/I, the haters abused, and suffered no consequences. John didn't care. HiLo48 (talk) 02:19, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let me put this in straight forward terms considering my name has been mentioned here... There are no "haters" here, there are only people who are quite sick of your abrasive behaviour over an extended period of time who see passed your supposed good behaviour. The way you chose to go about things may have changed but the results are not any different. While I have attempted to discuss things with you in a civil manner, you have simply ignored all logic, reason and reasonable discussion that has been put in front of you and rather than hiding behind Wikipedia:BLUE you have now decided to take the Pauline Hanson front of Wikipedia:I DON'T LIKE IT which is nothing more than a replacement for your behaviour of calling users incompetent. Using wikipedia rules and guidelines for the purposes of personal attacks is nothing more than Wikipedia:BADFAITH editing and disguising your behaviour by abusing one guideline to the next neither changes nor helps the problem that is occurring here.

I have attempted on multiple occasions to maintain civil discourse with you in the past, however all of that has fallen on deaf ears. Your recent Pauline Hanson impersonation does not amuse me anymore than any of your other recent behaviour. --Orestes1984 (talk) 02:55, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I distinctly recall you being asked on multiple occasions, both by me and by some administrators, to never post on my Talk page again. HiLo48 (talk) 03:00, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but on an online site, if it is "supposed" good behaviour, isn't that all that's seen, and needed? Timeshift (talk) 03:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to comment in a way that mentions my username I will get a notification, and I am within my right to comment here seeing as there is no interaction ban going on here. My comments are well reasoned and civil, I have stated what needs to be said, your response about me staying away from a discussion that involves me is otherwise nothing more than Wikipedia:Gaming the system--Orestes1984 (talk) 03:20, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. Any user has the power to authoritatively tell another user not to post on their talk page. If he doesn't want you here, you must abide by that, no matter what he says about you. If what he says about you violates a rule then that will be dealt with seperately and you have forums such as ANI to raise that on. Timeshift (talk) 03:22, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And I quote "Mis-using Wikipedia processes to put another editor in an invidious position, prove a point, or muddy the water in a dispute, can also be a form of gaming the system" Stay out of a discussion that does not involve yourself... Thanks... We are adults here who do not need parent styled defence --Orestes1984 (talk) 03:25, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to me? I'm a WP:STALKER and perfectly in my rights to be. If HiLo doesn't want me on his talkpage he is well within his rights to say so and I would have to abide by that. Timeshift (talk) 03:28, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HiLo, do me a favor, quickly--tell me where you told Orestes to stay off your talk page. I know it's mentioned in a section, above, but I'd like to see it for myself. Thanks--and ping me when you link it. Orestes, your comments are far from civil, and much depends on this business of "stay off my talk page". Drmies (talk) 03:26, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See User talk:Orestes1984... his block started with the reasoning of "You were asked three times to stay away from Hilo's talk page, not only by them, but also by at least two uninvolved users." Timeshift (talk) 03:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, I'll swear that I had some content above where I told him to piss off. (Language I wouldn't use now, of course.) But I must have deleted those threads. The post from Nick Thorne at 21:08, 25 January 2014 (UTC), in the thread "IBAN" should help. If it doesn't, I can go looking in my history. HiLo48 (talk) 03:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, here and here. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 03:47, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How's about this... Editing in such a way that puts me in invidious situation where I am asked for a response on a talk page that I don't want to be on is nothing more than Wikipedia:Gaming the system --Orestes1984 (talk) 03:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Call it what you want, it doesn't change the fact that HiLo doesn't want you here and therefore you can't post here. You're not forced to edit on this page just because of what someone else says. If what someone says violates a rule then it will be dealt with either directly from an admin or through ANI. These are facts. Get over it. Timeshift (talk) 03:36, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How's about you leave two adults to sort out there own issue, we are not children here. If I get a notice here that is flagrantly incorrect I am going to take my time to correct the misinformation that is posted here. It's quite simple and your disruptive editing in the midst of this does not help this situation. --Orestes1984 (talk) 03:39, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I said already, i'm a WP:STALKER and perfectly in my rights to be. I don't normally get involved in others' fights but this has more than run it's course. It's like going in to someone else's home and insisting you have a right to be there to correct what they say about you in their own home. If there's slander/libel or something else that is a law violation then there are procedures that can be undertaken to rectify that - but you can't enter or remain in their house against their will no matter what they've said or done. Time to ban Orestes1984, he's already been blocked before and demonstrating no willingness to change. EDIT: He's now been banned. Timeshift (talk) 03:45, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HAHAHA oh my dear now that is funny. If there was any doubt before, there's none now. Timeshift (talk) 04:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Timeshift9, I find nothing funny about this. Just as HiLo can ask Orestes to buzz off, so Orestes can ask you. Besides, he's not "banned", he's only blocked for a short while. Please, do not add fuel to this fire. Drmies (talk) 05:15, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orestes can ask me indeed - thus why after he asked me I haven't posted on his talkpage since. Unlike him who ignores such a request. And sorry, I use ban and block interchangeably even though one is perm one is temp. Timeshift (talk) 05:19, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, remember last night when I asked you to avoid this area for a while, and requested you not to use IDONTLIKEIT arguments on your return? I couldn't help notice this which seems to breach both. Was it an oversight or did you intend to ignore me? --John (talk) 08:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a completely different article. Didn't see that as a breach of your request, even though I regard your request as silly and unreasonable, because I don't believe I did anything wrong back at Talk:Soccer in Australia. I haven't touched that article, and did not intend to. But I still don't understand why you are trying to silence me. HiLo48 (talk) 08:12, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not trying to silence you but to avoid the waste of time and energy that continual conflict regarding the naming discussions at football/soccer-related articles has become. I don't know why you would think that was silly or unreasaonable. Once again, I request you to stay away from the area for a few days and that you avoid using IDONTLIKEIT and COMPETENCE in arguments. --John (talk) 08:19, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to get involved in this, but "I don't like it" can be used all it wants. Whether it gets any positive outcome is another matter. And I must say i'm very surprised that you as an admin reverted this particular sentence which is on another user's talk page and presumably doesn't mind input from me. Perhaps it's actions like that which bring down HiLo's opinion of admins. Timeshift (talk) 08:28, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John, could you be so kind as to point me to the policy that gives the authority for an admin to unilaterally order an editor off an article and/or talk page in an area of his/her interest, without community support expressed through consensus in a discussion such as an RFC or AN/I on the matter? Otherwise your "request" is nothing more than a suggestion and may be simply ignored. Of course, if the editor does subsequently breach policy then that is another matter, but your "request" on its own is not enforceable in any way. - Nick Thorne ^talk 09:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And John, I simply ask, "Why?". I was asked by several Admins a while ago to change my discussion style. I did. I have now been complimented by several Admins on my efforts. No-one but you seems to find anything wrong with what I was doing. How can I respect your request, when other Admins have been completely happy with my approach? Also, what you are doing is telling those whose anti-consensus position I have been opposing that I'm still in trouble. That gives them ammunition. They will fire that ammunition, at that article's Talk page, and at places like AN/I. You are not helping to resolve the issues at that article at all. Oh, and precisely what's wrong with pointing out that the only argument those I'm opposing seem to have is "I don't like it"? If it's true, surely it can be said. HiLo48 (talk) 09:11, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't helping things to personalise and rubbish other people's arguments like this. This debate shouldn't even be happening right now as there was an RfC only a few months ago. Please, let it go. There are better things to spend your time on. --John (talk) 09:33, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, you're the one who started this back up with "Was it an oversight or did you intend to ignore me?" after it had already settled down. Timeshift (talk) 09:39, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, John. I don't believe I am personalising and rubbishing other people's arguments. But I'll admit to being very confused by your comments.

And I note that before even replying here, you've left the no "I don't like it" demand, while adding another silly comment to the article's Talk page, proving again that you don't have an adequate grasp of the history there. You ask that no new naming discussions begin "unless major new evidence is discovered". Two out of every three such discussions begin with precisely that kind of claim, that new evidence exists. Such claims are usually wrong, of course, but the editors involved believe they have evidence. As I said above, you are not helping resolve the issues at that article at all. HiLo48 (talk) 09:41, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Folks, John is trying to help. What do you expect him to do? Block anyone who dares to suggest changing "soccer" to "football"? His two comments at Talk:Soccer in Australia#Pithy warning are both excellent. This is Wikipedia where the community always does the right thing ... after exhausting all the alternatives (thanks Churchill). There really is no alternative other than that suggested by John. People are free to be POINTy (Show me the policy that I can't say IDONTLIKEIT), but it won't end well when the matter is next brought to ANI. Johnuniq (talk) 11:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John IS threatening to block anyone who dares to suggest changing "soccer" to "football". His comments at Talk:Soccer in Australia#Pithy warning are not excellent at all. they imply that I have been doing the wrong thing. I don't believe I have. In condemning me he is giving ammunition to the real troublemakers there. Artificial even-handedness never helps. HiLo48 (talk) 20:27, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree John is trying to help, but he's not doing a great job of it. I expect him to follow standard dispute resolution protocols. If if feels topic bans were appropriate, the right way to do that was to propose such on the ANI thread, not to close the thread with "nothing more to see here" and then suggest / threaten topic bans on his own dime, contrary to the stated policy at WP:IBAN (as Nick Thorne has pointed out). NE Ent 12:49, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With 12,000 / 36% mainspace edits, HiLo48 is a benefit to the encyclopedia. In the past, HiLo48 engaged in outbursts of frustration dealing with nonsense, such as the tendentious, won't drop the stick, WP:IDHT nonsense has been occurring on Soccer in Australia. What he was told during the past episodes was that there were better ways to act and to restrain himself. He has mostly done that; its now up to us to uphold our end of the implicit bargain and support that behavior. Applying equal sanctions by attempting to apply out of order topic bans makes a mockery of that.

Briefly, the August 2013 RFC on the name of the sport had large participation and clear consensus, but a couple / handful of editors don't like that and have going on and on. Although both sides really need to heed the Content on content, not our contributors urging of WP:TPYES, HiLo kept it within what passes for civil around here and the other party did not, stating explicitly they "did not care" about talk page policy.

HiLo48 here's what you need to know:

Wikipedia processes suck. It's not politically correct to say that, but it is it what it is.
Wikipedia does not have a functional civility policy. We have a civility meme we vaguely wave at from time to time, but we're never converged into a solid consensus as to what exactly is, and isn't allowable conduct.
Wikipedia values content more than anything, and it values folks are able to contribute despite, rather than because of, those first two bullet points.
To be blunt, there is generally not much interest in sorting through a long back and forth of personal comments and barbs and escalating tension to parse out which of multiple editors is more right than the others.
Forget the "Consensus is not voting" myth -- Wikipedia content disputes are a numbers game. The numbers clearly indicate "Soccer" is the right name. You've expended way too much effort defending a question that was already settled.
You are not required to respond to the same arguments over and over, and it is better that you don't. (If an editor makes a new argument, or introduces a new source, then it would be appropriate to address it.)
Wikilinks are you friend (weapon). When someone says something stupid, calling it stupid is counterproductive. When policy supports you (e.g. commonname), just linking the policy is a lot easier than using your own words. NE Ent 12:49, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I note all that has been said here, and I particularly appreciate what Johnuniq said. I also agree with much of NE Ent's bulleted comment above, and with the proposition that you are a valued editor. Of course you are! I'm not much into process for its own sake, and I haven't formally proposed a topic ban (that was a weird one!). I am just asking you nicely not to repeat the behaviour that helped create all the friction recently. If you are able to do that, end of problem and you need never interact with me. If you do continue to personalise or escalate disputes or to rubbish others' arguments (rather than just ignore them), in this one narrow area of Wikipedia, then I will block you. I will immediately take any such block to AN/I for review but I hope it goes without saying that I would rather not do this. Take the good advice you are being given, and everything will be all right, and we can all get on with more interesting things. --John (talk) 15:13, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't always agree with every aspect of HiLo's opinions or the way he goes about things ~ but he should be commended for his persistence and holding his ground in the face of so much nonsense which has been repeated ad nauseum by editors pushing a determined and frequently ignorant "football = soccer" / "soccer = football" agenda. Afterwriting (talk) 16:57, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John, you are still mistaken. You ask me to "not to repeat the behaviour that helped create all the friction recently". I don't believe my behaviour created the friction (unless you truly think that defending a consensus against lies and misconceptions is a bad thing), so what's the point of asking me to change? I was doing precisely what I was asked to do by other Admins. You threaten me, with "If you do continue to personalise or escalate disputes or to rubbish others' arguments ...then I will block you." I don't believe I was doing any of that, so why the nasty threat? Again, by declaring that I have been doing the wrong thing you are giving ammunition to the real troublemakers on that page. Your message conflicts far too much with the one I have received from other Admins, and supports the wrongdoers. As for your unwillingness to properly find out what has happened in a complex discussion, well sorry, you lose all my respect there. If you can't do a voluntary job properly you shouldn't be doing it. You are not helping to keep the peace at all. HiLo48 (talk) 20:22, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HiLo48, I want to apologise for threatening to block you above. I wish you would work with me in trying to mediate the problems that currently seem to surround terminology in Australian football/soccer. I see the good in you and the knowledge; I know the game pretty well too, and I played for my school and my college third team in Scotland where it was called "football" and in Africa too, and then later I played co-ed recreational "soccer" in California. I can see merit in all the many arguments about what Wikipedia articles should call the sport. The risk is that it will always be a potentially divisive area, with ethnic and nationalistic arguments bringing out the worst in people. The up-side benefit is that some articles will possibly move from one title to another, which are both clearly understood by everybody, and each of which redirects to the other in any case. I spoke sincerely when I said I am thoroughly fed up with this appearing at AN/I every week or so and I think it has to stop. I propose a truce to give everybody a rest. I saw something similar work really well in another contentious area a few years ago. Could we all just accept to go with the current status quo for a year and a bit, unless startling new evidence on the naming controversies comes to light? Can you help me here? --John (talk) 20:26, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry John, but that request to "go with the current status quo" seems rather disingenuous to me. It is not HiLo48 that starts all these arguments, it is the people who just don't like the current consensus and seek to worm their way around it. Unless someone interveines to stop them, they will simply claim a local consensus and change things despite knowing full well that the broader community has already decided against their desired change. Are you offering to monitor the relevant pages and prevent that? Otherwise I do not feel your suggestion is at all helpful. The real problem is an unwillingness at AN/I to tackle the real problem of these editors who continually "poke the bear" hoping to get him banned. Unfortunately for their plans, this particular bear seems to have learned not to react inappropriately, HiLo48 should be congratulated for that, not admonished. - Nick Thorne ^talk 21:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John, I do appreciate the apology. That means a lot. But Nick has just pointed out much of the real issue here. All I have been doing is defending a well (and multiply) established consensus. Every few weeks one of the editors who does not want the sport called Soccer in Australia has turned up at that article's Talk page with precisely what I'm sure they would describe as "startling new evidence". Of course, it hasn't been, but that doesn't stop the nonsense. A handful of other anti-consensus editors have joined the throng each time, and typically begin to get personal very early in the discussion. As Nick says, in recent times I have made a massive edit to avoid taking the (overwhelming amount of) bait. I have remained calm and presented facts. Unfortunately, some editors have denied that my "facts" are valid. I have travelled extensively in Australia, and have seen how the language is used around the country. (It differs widely.) Most of those arguing against consensus have not travelled, but still claim that what I say is wrong, even about places I have lived for decades and they have never been. They obviously want the truth to be different from what it is, and end up targeting the messenger. Interestingly, I learnt the name "soccer" for the round ball game from the hordes of English and Scottish immigrants who lived in my area as I was growing up in the 1950s and 60s. That's what they called the game, and still do. It seems that the name "soccer" is now almost a non-word in the UK. Some have alleged in our discussions that it is derogatory, but did not provide evidence. It's still the primary name for the game for at least half the population of Australia, so it can't be too derogatory. So, a question: Is it a derogatory term in the UK now? Can that claim be sourced? Is this what makes people so angry?

Finally, what would this "truce" be? Me stopping politely defending a well established consensus? That makes no sense. HiLo48 (talk) 23:43, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The amusing thing is that the people putting forth the view that soccer is derogatory go out of their way to be rude and aggressive to those that don't share their world view. An example was the controversy over the Guardian Australia choosing soccer over football for the round ball game. Hack (talk) 01:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Moved from my user talk) John, you can remove this if you want, but if you allow the ongoing abuse against me that's been posted in the past 36 hours by 2nyte, Macktheknifeau and Orestes1984 (yes, I did his his abuse yesterday, before it was deleted, with just another warning), with no consequences, Wikipedia's processes are useless. I have shown incredible patience and goodwill in recent times in the hope that Wikipedia would do something about those who don't. I have seen nothing positive come from it. Warmings, again, and again, and again, and again, and again, with no follow up, are pointless. There's has to be a limit. I have shown good faith. They haven't. You know my position. This is a waste of time. HiLo48 (talk) 21:01, 28 February 2014 (UTC) (end of moved text)[reply]

Be assured I will look into these editors' recent edits. If there are recent abuses I will take action. Next time put up a diff or two to help me, please. --John (talk) 21:08, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Waste of time. Until Admins permanently ban the perpetual abusers, this will go nowhere. I was going along with your process, and all I saw from the others was more insults. They're obvious if you look at the recent posts of the three abusers. HiLo48 (talk) 21:12, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't see recent insults, though I do see robust disagreement and I have set up the process I have principally to move on from the invective and bad assumptions that have developed. If you do see anything actionable from any of the protagonists that you have mentioned, please ping me here or at my talk. If you think of anybody else besides the existing disputants who you think needs to be included, or if there are other editors or admins who you think could help, feel free to ping me as well. If, on the other hand, you feel like stepping back from this for a week or two, that was one of my original suggestions. I'll be performing my own due diligence of course. I will keep an eye on the process and try to spot any worrying edits myself. Don't worry, either way this won't be allowed to fester. --John (talk) 21:19, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How about this, and this and this (the whole post, not just the final edit). You cannot reasonably ask me to try to work with editors posting that sort of crap without consequence. (And who have been posting it for years!) I also have no intention of stepping away. I am not the problem. I have broken no rules. You are letting others do that, and it destroys the chance of any resolution here. HiLo48 (talk) 00:18, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My hope is that by designing the process as I have, it will reduce the potential for further rudeness. I agree with you and have warned both editors that they must not repeat their rudeness. I am trying to get through this without blocking anybody, but if it becomes necessary, rest assured I will do it. --John (talk) 00:46, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I once wrote something relevant to that on my user page, but it seems to have disappeared. It went something like - Q: When is a warning not a warning? A: When it is breached within hours, and the offender is warned again, and it is breached within hours, and the offender is warned again, and it is breached within hours, and the offender is warned again, and it is breached within hours, and the offender is warned again, and it is breached within hours, and the offender is warned again, and... HiLo48 (talk) 00:50, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't quite fair, you know. Of the three you complain about, I warned Macktheknifeau here about the anti-consensus edits, then again (post your comment above) I have just rewarned him specifically for civility here. Orestes1984 took his warning and has not edited in the area or at all for a few days. I reminded 2nyte here about standards of behaviour, and as far as I can see they have not done anything objectionable since. Let's not go looking for trouble, and let's move forward and be reasonable. Thanks again for your contribution to the discussion. --John (talk) 01:02, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They have all been warned by several Administrators several times before. I was warned a few times, a bit unfairly I thought, but I changed. They have not. This is not a problem of just the past few days. It cannot be just your warnings that count here. This has been going on for years and will continue to go on for years if Admins remain so soft on real, repeat offenders. And why should I have to keep putting up with abuse that's been going on for years? We talk about forum shopping as unacceptable here. What about Admin shopping? HiLo48 (talk) 01:17, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And for goodness sake, Orestes came off a block for abuse just two days ago! If that's not evidence of a repeat offence, I don't know what is? HiLo48 (talk) 01:25, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I reckon I've kept my end of the bargain here, under massive pressure not to. You Admins are letting me down. Again. HiLo48 (talk) 01:32, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And now we have Orestes' contribution to John's peacemaking process. As well as containing deceptive errors of fact (e.g. "SBS is Australia's national broadcaster". LOL.), it contains all his usual attacks on me, but with my name removed. He knows who he is attacking. I know who he is attacking. Allowing that nonsense is making this place still worse. But John has asked for no further input at this stage. Hopefully he will remove the destructive stuff. HiLo48 (talk) 02:30, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And Orestes has been warned. Again. Again. Again.... Oh dear. What IS the point? HiLo48 (talk) 10:02, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of coffee for you!

Thank you for your vigilance over the article on butter. I replied to you at Talk:Butter#Butter_alternatives. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:15, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pop over when you get a chance

Hi. Could you look in at User talk:John#Next step; clarification when you have a chance? Thanks a lot. --John (talk) 18:37, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your response there. --John (talk) 00:43, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Australia women's national wheelchair basketball team at the 2012 Summer Paralympics

I am trying to get some reviewers for Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Australia women's national wheelchair basketball team at the 2012 Summer Paralympics/archive2. It had an earlier nomination but failed for lack of reviewers. If you could take a few minutes to post even a short review, it would be much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man, keep your cool

Hi there HiLo48, I understand that you feel under attack from the "anti soccer" brigade. However, while I understand your frustration, in my opinion we would be far better off to let the other side take as much rope as they want. They already seem to be tying the noose quite well, leave them alone and they will put it over their own necks and then kick the trapdoor release handle all by themselves. They will do this because their arguments do not stand up and they do not realise just what they are really doing. Just keep calm, allow them to be as ugly as they like for the time being and the opportunity to see them get hoisted by their own petards will present itself without any help from you or me. - Nick Thorne ^talk 07:49, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John issued Orestes a FINAL warning. Orestes has insulted me again. Next? HiLo48 (talk) 10:53, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know. I'm not trying to have a go at you, mate. I'm just saying that the best strategy is to give these people all the time they need to show their true colours. The opportunity to take them to task for their actions and to show the vacuousness of their arguments will present itself in due course. For now patience is the best plan, no matter how galling some of their posts may be. Just remember that despite what these guys think, there are others out here that can plainly see what they are trying to do and some of us have long memories when required - or at least we know how to search a page's history. - Nick Thorne ^talk 12:35, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the "gallingness" of the insults that's the problem here. I have a pretty thick skin. And I am used to "vigorous" discussion. (Having had to moderate the style of my own culture to survive here.) It's the fact that John won't stick to his word. Words are all we have here. The fact that John's "final warning" was anything but a final warning means that abusers can keep abusing with impunity. Everyone can argue that very simple words mean something different from their obvious meaning. That whole process is getting nowhere. HiLo48 (talk) 19:59, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen some of the appalling way you have been treated by some admins in the past and I understand why you are a bit gun shy when it comes to trusting them. However, I think you'd be wise to let this current process go it's course. I have a feeling that this might end somewhat differently. Let's just wait and see. If it goes pear shaped in the end you won't be on your own when it come to seeking remedial action but I honestly think we won't need to go down that path. The other guys will no doubt say more things that are objectionable, it seems to be in their nature. What we should do is hold our tongue for now and let them dig their own graves. This process is far from over and I would reserve judgement on it till it is. - Nick Thorne ^talk 21:30, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly amending something I said above - When is a final warning not a final warning? When it is breached, and ignored. I do wish people would choose their words more carefully. HiLo48 (talk) 22:46, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It gives me no joy to see that my prediction regarding at least one of the editors involved has come true. We should take it as a salutary lesson that we need to make sure our contributions do not cross the line. I realise just how frustrating it can be when they repeat the same old nonsense over and over, we just have to maintain appropriate decorum, and allow the others to make their own beds - they'll get to lie in them soon enough. Also, we need to try to keep our responses short and to the point - the interminable posts by our recently departed friend are excellent examples of ineffective argument tending towards a tldr response. I firmly believe that in the end reason will win through on this debate. Hang in there. - Nick Thorne ^talk 23:31, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I've already been hanging in there, dodging missiles, for an awfully long time. But yes, I did notice that someone had disappeared during the night. That was after I had responded this morning to something he had posted last night, so I quickly checked back to see if my response was OK. I was pleased to discover it was. We probably are getting somewhere now. HiLo48 (talk) 23:39, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

Please see the RfC I have started at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Football in Australia). Thanks. --John (talk) 20:27, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HiLo48, you might want to have another look at your response to the RFC, I think you have made a bit of a typo at the end of the sentence. - Nick Thorne ^talk 22:09, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification, but it takes your response over the 20 word limit. Sorry to be a stickler. Any chance you could edit it down? Maybe move some to the discussion section? Thanks in advance. --John (talk) 23:18, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't

I asked you not to do this. It will spoil the process of what we are doing. Please don't. I really appreciate your contributions and I don't want to have to block you. I have answered your question at my talk and I am happy to continue the conversation there, within reason. --John (talk) 07:08, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have threatened to block me, for asking for guidance. That approach doesn't win my respect. I still feel no guilt over what I've done in recent times on this topic, and you're treating me like the offender. I don't understand. HiLo48 (talk) 07:20, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

For all who might be amused by these things, the following is a perfect example of how bad Wikipedia's Administration is. I was blocked (which of course stays on my record), and then unblocked within two hours, because it was a stupid block. The block came as a result of a discussion at AN/I I was never informed of. The discussion wasn't actually about me. I was protecting Wikipedia against vandalism at the time. Sad really. HiLo48 (talk) 00:39, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Forced adoption in Australia. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Dpmuk (talk) 20:33, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

HiLo48 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The actions the blocking admin has interpreted as Edit warring on my part were what I believed to be protection of the article Forced adoption in Australia from repeated edits and ignoring of advice, that had effectively become vandalism, from User:Empire of War. I had been working with User:Nick Thorne, the editor who ultimately reported Empire of War's behaviour to AN/I, to politely try to convince Empire of War, a new editor, of the error of their ways. I had used Edit summaries, politely. I responded to a conversation on my Talk page initiated by Empire of War, politely. (Nick Thorne had actually taken part in this conversation, endorsing my position.) There had been conversation on the article's talk page on the matter. Empire of War had reverted again after being warned by Nick Thorne. I felt I was doing the right thing by Wikipedia to revert once more. I received no warning that my behaviour was being interpreted in any way other than as a positive thing. Had I received a warning, of any kind, from anybody, on this matter. I would have stopped. I therefore believed, with some justification, that I was doing the right thing. My editing was entirely in good faith. HiLo48 (talk) 21:05, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

All right, well, I take it that you're warned now. :P You were definitely acting in good faith, and I see where you're coming from, but I wouldn't say that Empire of War's contribs crossed the line into vandalism simply by their persistence. Tendentious--and therefore disruptive--yes, but not really vandalism (they still thought the edits were the right thing for the article, which is the key difference), so the 3RR exemption doesn't really apply. But, you did try to discuss things, you were supported by other editors, so I can see how this came to pass. In the future, if things like this happen where an editor keeps trying to go back to their preferred version despite a working consensus, it's probably better to seek admin assistance (at WP:ANEW if nowhere else, probably) rather than to continue reverting, as that would still be considered edit-warring. So, in conclusion: go forth, and (good faith) edit-war no more. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:30, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason there to be confident that you won't do the same thing again should I unblock. I suggest you go and read WP:EW and specifically the section on 3RR exemptions. Even if I accept the edits were vandalism (and I definitely don't think they meet our definition of vandalism) they definitely weren't obvious enough for that exemption. You need to address your actions, and what you'd do in future, in your unblock request. All that said I, personally, think a blocked user should have an unblock request reviewed by a different admin so I won't deny this request and am happy for it to be dealt with however a reviewing admin thinks best. Dpmuk (talk) 21:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am well aware of WP:EW and WP:3RR. I believed that the edits by Empire of War had become vandalism, one of the reasons for a 3RR exemption, so again, I thought I was doing the right thing. I may be mistaken, and would be happy to admit my mistake if that is the case. I was attempting to help resolve the problem, along with User:Nick Thorne. Did you see the conversation on my Talk page above before you blocked me? (Headed "WSG", whatever that means.) Did you think about warning me, as Empire of War was warned? I would have stopped. Did you realise that I was unaware of the AN/I report and discussion, where negative comments were made about me without me even knowing the thread existed, and so was unable to respond? That would have changed things a lot too. (Actually, is it valid for a block to be issued based on an AN/I report that I wasn't even advised of?) And actually, despite your seemingly wise comment on it, it's my understanding that my appeal MUST be considered by another administrator, not the one who blocked me. (I read it because I DO try to follow correct procedure here.) I don't think it's helpful for you to come here and simply repeat what I see as a mistaken interpretation of my behaviour. HiLo48 (talk) 22:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Writ Keeper has just asked me whether it's OK if they unblock you and based on the above I've agreed. If they've not unblock by the time I've written this I'll do so myself. Yes I was aware of the comments above but just because you're discussing something doesn't mean you can carry on edit warring - I'm sure you can see why this is the case. As for the warning it seemed clear to me, as you've just admitted, that you were aware of WP:EW and WP:3RR so no I didn't think of warning you. As soon as it become clear to me that Empire of War was also aware of it I blocked them as well. I did think about whether it was fair to block you while not them and decided that a very firm warning to them to make sure they were aware of WP:3RR and a block for you (who should have been) was the best balance but it wasn't an easy balance to strike and I may have got it wrong.

I would've have blocked you no matter how I'd come across the issue so even if I'd known you were unaware of the ANI thread it would have made no difference to my actions. As for the unblock issue, I will admit to not remembering that bit of policy. I've seen so many unblock requests denied by the blocking admin that I'm really quite surprised that it is policy - it never occurred to me it was given how often I've seen it ignored. That said I'm really glad it is.

I'll be honest and say it never occurred to me that you thought you were acting on the vandalism exemption. A large part of the reason for that is that you never make any mention of vandalism, let alone using the exemption, in your edit summaries. Had you done so that would have probably given me pause for thought. As it was those edits were so outside what I'd consider are the normal standards for 'obvious vandalism' that it never occurred to me that you'd think they were. I apologise for that but at the same time do suggest that more informative edit summaries when you know you're breaking 3RR would be a good idea. Dpmuk (talk) 22:40, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Terrific. So you didn't warn me. You didn't tell me about the thread at AN/I. And my real motivation never occurred to you. Did it occur to you that I was never given the opportunity to explain before your trigger finger acted? For a long time I have had very little faith in the Administrator system in this place. Thank you for reinforcing that view. HiLo48 (talk) 00:33, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive831#Review of my actions.

I should be surprised at this, but I'm not. I think a basic test on Wikipolicy, particularly that relating to blocks, should be required for anyone applying to be an admin. Holdek (talk) 05:47, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, our Admin system is broken. Admins won't block other Admins, no matter how badly behaved, and will rarely even criticise them. There are some great Admins, but that flaw in the system gets in the way of sensible and productive behaviour. HiLo48 (talk) 06:00, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that as well. Holdek (talk) 12:33, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your request

On reflection, I agreed with your request and refactored the discussion. Thank you for your vigilance. --John (talk) 18:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It seemed important to maintain the balance. HiLo48 (talk) 21:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And I've now refactored one of your earlier comments, on a similar basis. Hope that is OK. --John (talk) 00:45, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. It's ignoring the elephant in the room. At some stage we really do need to tackle the nonsense that the name "soccer" is offensive. It's just a ridiculous and, to be frank, insulting claim, coming from only three editors here. It has never been sourced anywhere. I really do see it as a case of those three who want the name of the game to change to "football" saying "I don't like the name Soccer any more". I actually find it offensive and silly to be told that a common name used by a large majority of Australians, including many fans and players, and me, with absolutely no malice intended or taken in almost all cases, is offensive. It needs pretty strong justification to be seen as anything more than a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Alternatively, it's a case of pushing the non-neutral POV that a minority name should be the one we use here. HiLo48 (talk) 05:29, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lies

Hi again HiLo48. I notice you still talking about other editors lying, eg here. Can I remind you again that people may legitimately hold opinions other than yours? You claimed here that there is an organisation called the Victorian Football Association, but it turns out to have been renamed in 1996. Now, I or someone else could call you a liar for making that claim, but I prefer to believe that you simply made a mistake. When so much of the discussion is based purely on the unverified opinion of editors, it is quite normal for people to make claims which are contradictory. It isn't helpful to shout them down or call them liars. Instead, simply note your disagreement and move on. It's better because it avoids getting heated again which leads to anger and to sanctions becoming necessary. At the start of this process I promised I would try to solve this by the end of March. I think we are well on the way to doing this. Hang in there and we will get there. Do you not notice already the discussions are more civilised? Let's strive for a peaceful resolution. Wouldn't it be great to go into Easter with this debate concluded? --John (talk) 15:44, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am perfectly happy to openly and honestly discuss the Victorian Football Association with other editors (the history is very interesting, and the organisation does still exist, albeit with a different name now, but it's still the only use of the word "Association" I am aware of ever being used in Australia together with the word "football"), just as I am willing to discuss language either side of the Barassi Line. The editors from insular enclaves in Western Sydney or Western Brisbane seem unable or unwilling to do that. They repeat claims that I HAVE refuted. I HAVE provided evidence in the form of a photo you won't now allow me to use. They repeat claims about "national media", which carries no weight at all. These guys have never been to my part of Australia. I have been to theirs. I have listed dozens of links in the past showing the use of language for "football = Aussie Rules" all over the country. They have not. They are talking nonsense. It's only fair that we say so. So, I HAVE provided links. Do I really have to go through it all again? The only possible reason could be bad faith editing by others. And that's not a good enough reason for me to have to do more work. It IS a good reason to block people. If an Admin had blocked every editor who had talked about me rather than the topic, there would be nobody left on the "soccer = football" side of the argument". HiLo48 (talk) 18:29, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further, I have formally studied the discipline of negotiation. A key element of that process IS to identify and discuss the true motivations of all participants in a discussion. I find that restricting that aspect of the process here is very prohibitive. HiLo48 (talk) 18:42, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and as for discussion now being more civilised, that's primarily because one of the worst offenders has now been indefinitely blocked, not because of an improvement in attitude, knowledge or competency of those who think I am their enemy, and who repeatedly break many of the rules here. 18:44, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and that block was down to me; if I was not helping out that one would have gone to AN/I and been a timesink for a dozen volunteers like all the other disputes there have been in this area. One's own experience counts for little to nothing here. If you think someone else is talking nonsense it would be better to say something like I disagree with your statement: source x and source y don't use the term that way. If you can't see that others may hold contrary opinions in what is after all a disagreement about nomenclature, you should definitely avoid the area completely. If there are objective problems with others' behaviour then you may flag them up with me, and if I agree I will issue a warning then a block. Like a referee, I know deep down it will spoil the game if I send half the players off, and it has always been my avowed wish to solve this with the least possible amount of bloodshed. If I wanted to look for reasons to block, I could have easily blocked three times the number I have done. I don't. I congratulate you on your study of the theory of negotiation. I only have my eight years of experience mediating disputes on Wikipedia to go by and I believe I know what does and doesn't work here. Wikipedia is its own little universe in so many ways; the rules of the world work differently in here. As at any point throughout this, you or anyone else is welcome to go to AN/I if you feel my intervention is unhelpful. I still firmly believe we are on track to sort out the problems that have disrupted this area for years. That'd be great, wouldn't it? --John (talk) 20:29, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, I have worked hard to dig up evidence about how the language is used on the side of the Barassi Line most of the "soccer =football" fans have never been. I HAVE posted it at Talk:Soccer in Australia several times over the past couple of years. It has generally been ignored, or I've been told the Barassi Line doesn't exist (a stupid response, and I won't apologise for saying that), or that I had been selective in my choice of sources. I WAS selective. I chose sources from places where soccer is strong, to more strongly prove my point. There are differences of opinion here, but there is also an awful lot of denial of factual evidence. That's what irks me. If I present evidence, and it is ignored, and claims that I have proven to be untrue are repeated, that's lying, and it's bad faith editing. I'm not sure I have the time to go hunting up all that evidence again. 22:54, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Adelaide Oval

I had a question I wanted to ask, and as I cast my eye over the page edit history, yours was the only name I noticed that I'd consider trustworthy, so guess what! I decided to ask you!! So I did. Then I realized that the answer to my question was obvious. Never-the-less, I thought I'd pay you the compliment of acknowledging your status. Best wishes, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:19, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Thanks. HiLo48 (talk) 19:44, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Really?

Almost five years editing the Wikipedia and you still haven't got used to the Wiki jargon? ;)

"Both interwikis are disambiguations connected to item Q2010368 on Wikidata" (which means they don't need to, and in this case they shouldn't be on that article).

When you see a technical edit by someone else which you don't fully understand, maybe you could try to learn from it first, instead of simply reverting that person. —capmo (talk) 23:07, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's funny. Almost exactly when you were typing that, I was teaching a high school IT class how important it is for technically oriented people to be able to present material in a way that can be easily understood by a majority of the expected audience, in whatever forum one finds oneself. I typically ask "Can you explain this in language your mother will understand?" Your approach seems to be that if someone cannot understand you it's their fault. HiLo48 (talk) 00:24, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, if you don't understand what has been done, you just revert and that's it? There are better approaches, "IMO". I'm not a big fan of jargons, either, but a couple of them are so much used that we expect most people will understand them (and those who don't can always do a quick search, nowadays). Don't you think it would be easier to teach your mother the meaning of LOL instead of having to write "Laughing Out Loud" a hundred times in a comic text? —capmo (talk) 16:22, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, you are definitely art of our systemic bias. A couple more decades of experience will probably fix that. HiLo48 (talk) 18:33, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dates

Thanks for taking care of this. These days, knowing I can flip all the dates even in the largest articles in less than 10 seconds, I can afford to be a lot more relaxed about people adding new dates or arbitrarily changing date formats. I recommend that you give my MOSNUM script a try. Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 01:54, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. HiLo48 (talk) 00:25, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

This comment inspired me to ask have you ever considered running for adminship? (I do realize it might be a longshot to pass RfA, but I though I'd ask anyway.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:48, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but too many of my battles here have been with Administrators. I'd be wanting to block too many of them far too often. It's seems that there's a code of "respect"(?) that largely prevents that from happening. Dunno if I could stick to that. A few years back a popular local sporting hero in my town died after being punched by a hotel bouncer. In the ensuing debate, it was pointed out that bouncers aren't always the most savoury people themselves, and really, the last person you probably want to recruit as a bouncer is someone who desperately wants to be one. I wonder if sometimes the same applies to Administrators here? (Slight tongue in cheek there.) HiLo48 (talk) 03:11, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just for other admins, but for all experienced editors, your bad block experience from last month not withstanding. Really it shouldn't be that way, but it is what it is. Pretending all users are treated equally does not make it so.

On a random note, I see Australian Vaccination Network has a new name based on your recent move. Did you know I wrote most of that article a couple years ago? Small world. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a lot more bad experiences with Admins than just last month. Some don't like being challenged, and abuse their powers in the process of defending themselves. Some are just plain bullies. Some are not very clear thinkers. Some are puritans, and cannot comprehend that there's more than one culture in the world when it comes to naughty words. (They really do need to hear the language used by some of the very Christian people I work with!) Many are terrific, with one major fault - they won't do anything about the bad Admins. A culture with protected members who can do no wrong in the eyes of other officials is an unhealthy one. There, have I destroyed all chances of ever becoming an Admin now?

And yes, the Australian Vaccination-Skeptics Network has finally upset enough people to be forced to be a little more honest about its goals. Though I cannot comprehend why they chose the American spelling of the new word in their name. That will only annoy even more people! HiLo48 (talk) 07:12, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well your main obstacle would be your personality, not your views on the problems with the system. (Admins are expected to be nice almost all the time. The few abrasive personalities either got in before standards were raised or fooled people by acting for a while.) The main problem, IMO, is the lack of a viable recall process. I don't get involved in wiki-politics much, (I am more interested in writing articles than reading ANI threads) but I have supported some of the (historical) proposals to create a community recall found at WP:RFDA (which also has a good read on the many admins who lost their status through abuse.) Since I have never been involved in blocks, I don't really know how common abuse there is, but I know incorrect use of speedy deletion is a significant problem. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:50, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I left this comment on the NCAA basketball ITNR: "@HiLo - Yah, it would have been better to wait to nominate (as was my plan). Do you really feel my argument failed to explain why it is important though? If so, what would you like as evidence?" Since you didn't reply, I assume it was overlooked in the walls of text. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm too honest to be nice to bigots all the time.

You've worked hard on the NCAA thing, and probably gone close to getting it right on explaining the cultural significance. Trouble is, as an American you're up against an unhealthy image that some other Americans have created for you. Yes, the college sport thing IS weird in the eyes of the rest of the world. Even incomprehensible. You have recognised that and put a massive effort into trying to explain it. It's good to see a thorough explanation of how things work. I suspect many, like me, still don't understand how college sport actually became so important. The big problem is that too many other Americans are unaware that the rest of the world is different, and don't even comprehend the need to try to explain American customs to the rest of the world. Even among those who know there is a world of difference, there IS an arrogance among some, of a sort partly explained in American exceptionalism, which of course leads to some pretty undiplomatic behaviour. Then you get odd nominations like the current one called "BLM/Nevada". What kind of perspective makes anyone think that such a nomination has any chance of success in the face of a global audience? Even using the abbreviation BLM without further explanation shows some sort of weird arrogance. While we perhaps end up with a reasonably realistic proportion of American item getting through to ITN, there are definitely more junk nominations from America than from the rest of the world. And somebody has to oppose them! The strange thing is that when I've been in the USA, I have been treated so universally well, even by people who would have dramatically different views on some issues (and who can't even understand what I'm saying because of my accent)! Keep up the good work. HiLo48 (talk) 17:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are certainly right about the one-off junk nominations coming mostly from the US. I'm not sure how much is because we think differently and how much is just because 50% of the readership comes from the US. The "BLM" nomination, for example, seems like pure laziness. I doubt more than 5% of Americans would have identified the BLM acronym as being Bureau of Land Management before yesterday - I would have probably guessed Bacon Lettuce Mayonnaise without any context. For that matter, many of us would have not even been able to site the department's name if given a description of what it does. So, such nominations are certainly an indication of someone not bothering to consider anyone might have a different experience than themselves, but I would think that is a universal human trait, not especially an American thing. (We might be worse offenders though.)

As to why college sport is so important here, I think examining the difference between the three big sports (baseball, basketball, American football) is key. Baseball started as a game played by adults in clubs. These clubs soon developed into professional teams, probably the same way professional sport developed in most parts of the world. American style football was invented on a college. The rules developed as colleges played each other. Professional leagues cam much later, long after the sport was established as a spectator sport. By then people had allegiances to their teams which were then passed on the their children, and so on. Basketball was invented as a way to keep (college) football players conditioned during the winter when it was too cold to play outdoors. Basketball (unlike football) did see some early professional activity, but those teams were the exception - the game was developed at the college level. By the time the modern professional leagues developed in both basketball & football, the college game was already at a high level. There was effectively no need for minor league teams as the colleges developed the players for free. In contrast, baseball has an extensive minor league system, and there is minimal interest the college game. (The #4 sport - ice hockey - also has a minor league system and minimal interest in the college level.) In football or basketball, the best players go directly from college to the pros and perhaps start from day one. That would be inconceivable in baseball. (The NFL (football) and NBA (basketball) also have minimum age rules that effectively force players to play college ball.)

The second reason is the vast geographic area of the United States. Almost All the professional teams until recent times were concentrated in the northeast and midwest. This meant the only way for many people to take in high-level sports was through the college level. (The US population is less concentrated in the big cities than most countries.) Of course this is less of an issue nowadays, but team loyalties run deep. And of course it is more exciting to cheer on the local team even if other teams are easily accessible on the TV/internet/etc. I'll add that in the south, which historically had very few pro teams, college baseball is more popular than elsewhere.

There is also the desire to root for the "purity of amateur sport" and the "underdog", but those are probably universal desires (and of course not entirely accurate descriptors of big-time college sport nowadays).

So, I think the unique American obsession with college sport is a combination of local rooting interest, combined with the play being very high level (due to no real minor leagues), combined with the history of the football/basketball. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, based on the way the Masters item went down, I can agree 100% that some Americans are clueless. Sorry my change to the template did not stick. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:42, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm sure there's some in Australia too, but as we're often told by editors justifying American content, there's an awful lot of Americans. Thanks for your input to the Brian Harradine discussion. I'll admit to getting a little cross with Aductive for his Olivia-Newton John comments, etc. There was a serious failure there to attempt to understand the significance of the guy. I was trying to largely stay out of the discussion, but bullshit attracts me. HiLo48 (talk) 04:57, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as a former admin, I think at this point maybe gaining and successfully using the various sub-admin rights first would probably work best for long-term eds like you.John Carter (talk) 16:57, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A note...

I can't remember exactly where I first encountered you. I think it was at DR/N as a volunteer. I do seem to remember that we didn't exactly agree on things. I am not the type that holds on to grudges or bad feelings. So if we clashed at some point I have to say, I don't recall. I also can't recall who you don't get along with as I don't keep a running tally, but clearly you have your detractors. Hey, I have mine and I really don't give a crap. LOL! Seriously, I have one editor who despises me so much he asked an admin to tell me not to post to him anywhere. That admin told the editor that they would not play games and to tell me directly... which he never did. I only knew about the whole transaction because I have that admin's page watch listed. That was a couple of years ago. It made me feel horrible and reminded me of high school...no...elementary school. I have stayed as far from that editor as is possible and don't even care whether that effects any of the projects we had collaborated on.

But I am not here to relay my personal history. I wanted to mention that your name comes up on my watch list a great deal and that in my opinion, these several appearances are not very complimentary towards you. Not because you cuss or correct American variations of English or even because of your criticism of others. What makes you look bad in my eyes is that you are relentless. That can be a wonderful thing on other sites, but on Wikipedia it makes you look like a "warrior".

I want you to understand something. You, and only you can turn around your current situation. I meant it when I said we are not here to right great wrongs. Religious editors can be annoying at times, yes. But...they can also be like everyone else and be just as wonderful to work with. I, myself, am Pagan. I do not believe in Christian religion at all. But I have respect for other people and that includes what they believe in. This seems to be an approach that is alien to you. One does not have to agree with, or even like what other think or believe to have respect.

You have worked your way into a corner because you feel that those that are attempting to help you are just finding fault in you. Let me say that, if I were to look for fault in you, I am sure I could find plenty, but that isn't the point. The point is to make you aware that your actions have gone from simple criticism of content to criticism of editors, and that is what is wrong.

I think the one thing I can say about you that would probably be very true is that you, like me, do not give a crap what people think about you. This isn't a social network and we are not here to make friends. However, we are here to collaborate and pointing out the short comings of others in regards to their religious beliefs is not going to get you anywhere but blocked or topic banned. To me you are an important part of balancing the articles on religion. I happen to agree that we should never write about any faith as fact. But I also understand that calling someone's strong held beliefs a "Myth" is not helping.

Recently I discovered that my family can trace its origins to the creation stories of Hawaii. Many call these "Myths" but since these are my actual ancestors and are not distant cousins but about 25 to 30x great grand parents, it is insulting to me to hear these stories called "myths". To me they are simply how the peoples of Hawaii held their faith in their gods. There are few people that hold these stories in as high a regard as I do, but they are still very important to me as are the stories and ideas of Christians. You may notice that I recently switched my signature to read as Maleko Mela. That is simply my way of paying respect to my Hawaiian ancestry for the moment. I may not use the signature for very long but it struck me as something I could do to pay homage to my beliefs and my identifying with my Hawaiian ancestry. This is how Christians feel about their stories and ideas and simply telling them..oh, I don't know....that Jesus was elected as a deity may well be true but doesn't move a discussion along well (that is one of my criticisms). And that isn't even disrespectful. They other day I had a conversation with a very Catholic friend and mentioned that some still believe "Jesus Christ" is really "Julius Caesar" and that the star of Bethlehem was a comet seen at Caesar's death and that Augustus was considered the son of god because he was adopted at Caesar's death from his will. That wasn't taken well.

So just remember that only you have the power to temper your comments and not use your abilities here to counter every Christian "myth".

I strongly urge you to disengage from all religious articles for a while and find other topics to work on and improve and find the mindset that will be helpful and not hinder the project. Feel free to delete this message!--Maleko Mela (talk) 05:52, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great comments. I appreciate that.

I actually have strong respect for others' beliefs and traditions, so long as they are willing to accept that theirs is not the only possible way of looking at things. Your background sounds fascinating. A trip to Hawaii is on my list so I can at least see a bit of that. They tell me lots of Aussies go there these days. (Actually once spent three hours on the tarmac in Honolulu between 2.00 am and 5.00 am when my plane to LA had a fault. We weren't even allowed off the plane. I could see some palm trees in the distance!) I've also had a lot to do with Australian Aboriginal people, and they too have a great set of stories. So, others can believe what they like, but I don't like seeing it impact on what is meant to be an objective encyclopaedia.

The thing that irked me the most on the Christian creation story front was the editors who baldly and boldly argued that Christianity should be treated differently from other religions on Wikipedia, and that their story must be called a narrative, and those of others should be called myths. The reason given in some cases was that we should avoid offending people. (Meaning them, and not caring about anybody else.) What's sad is that they can't even seem to see that others have a right to disagree with that, to me, ridiculous view, and that it really gives Wikipedia a bad look with non-believers, and even many believers.

I grew up in a Christian family, but attitudes like that helped to push me away. Right now, I'm actually a Mathematics and Information Technology teacher in a Catholic school. They know my position. and respect my teaching in areas where religion has no real impact. They respect my efforts to help the students with moral issues. (I don't think my moral position is actually all that different from that of Jesus.) The staffroom at school hosts some terrific, vigorous discussions on religion. I often wonder if some of our strongly religious editors here are ever been exposed to such challenges to their faith. I suspect for some, it's a no. I clearly live in a culture very different from that of some of our religious editors, and I forget at times that some have led much more protected lives than me. I shall try to ignore them for a bit. (Though if any look here now I will probably be reported again!) HiLo48 (talk) 07:20, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Austrailian football player

For my own personal reference, can you clue me in as to whom you were referring to in the recent RD discussion when you mentioned an Austrailian football player nomination that failed for lack of comments. Thanks, ThaddeusB (talk) 18:48, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Stynes. HiLo48 (talk) 21:03, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting - I was active then, but don't remember the nomination in the slightest... Don't really understand why it wasn't posted as there were four supports and one weak oppose (which said post later, so not really an oppose at all). Seems to be a failure to post, not a failure to get consensus. I will take part of the blame for that considering I could have posted. For what its worth (nothing I suppose), I can't imagine it not being posted in the RD world (standards are lower now). --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:42, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. It was a failure to post, not a failure to get consensus. Simply not enough people cared. I can't see how lower standards in RD now would change that. People still won't care. Have I ever mentioned systemic bias? HiLo48 (talk) 01:14, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the low number of comments was due to systematic bias, but I'm not sure you can blame it not being posted on bias. I am quite sure I personally overlooked it, as I would have certainly supported or posted had I not - it was a very clear case from notability. It is possible other admins overlooked it too - we don't exactly have a large number willing to post stories, so it is easy for something to be missed...

I do wish you would nominate some more stuff from your part of the world. If another case of 4-0.5 comes up, I promise I will post it if I'm active on Wikipedia. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:27, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The other one that really bothered me when it fell off the bottom of the page through lack of interest was Keith Dunstan. He was the best known journalist at Australia's top selling daily newspaper for at least a couple of decades, and also did a lot more outside that role. Some time later, when I referred to that non-posting, an American editor described him as a non-entity journalist, or something like that. He really couldn't have been bigger as a journalist in Australia. But he wasn't American. HiLo48 (talk) 03:36, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(I wasn't active then, so can't take any of the blame this time...) Why didn't you say you added sources? That may (or may not) have made the difference since the quality comments seem to have been before (or roughly the same time) as you added the sources. People don't usually recheck article quality unless someone tells them too... I agree with you that there are "no one cares" issues with ITN sometimes & that more often than not it relates to a Eastern Hemisphere story. But, it is not exclusively geography - look how much trouble I have getting anyone to comment on the business stories I nominate, for example. I had to fight really hard to get enough attention for LafargeHolcim, which should have been a no brainer - much like your stories. To fight systematic bias, you really have to fight for deserving stories, not just complain about bad US/UK nominations. I'm not saying you don't have a right to complain, just that it isn't the most effective way to get what you want. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:34, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see you did fight hard for Chopper Read (also while I was not active). Unfortunately, there was no way it could be posted it that state, you were too busy to fix it, and no one else bothered to fix it... Systematic bias is surely part of why things aren't updated, but the plain laziness of most ITN contributers is the main factor. (See current US tornado item.) The vast majority of my nominations would never to be posted if I didn't do the work, regardless of what part of the world they are about. I believe more than half of the regulars never update ANY article. It seems I have to update half the items we post, including many nominations by others... If you help updating teh next nomination and I'm not active, feel free to try emailing me. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:49, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This should never be about who the nominator is and how much work they're willing or able to to on nomination or article. It should be about whether the item is a good one for ITN. HiLo48 (talk) 20:48, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well most of my (posted) nominations would fail without my efforts, and it's not due to systematic bias. ITN is about notability and article quality, which means someone has to do the work to get the article up to quality and that person is usually the nominator. You can complain that things should be different, or you can choose to try to make them better. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:28, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For being opinionated and outspoken. 75 * 19:43, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. HiLo48 (talk) 20:55, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some baklava for you!

I still maintain my favorite quote from you on my Talk page. Good to see that you're still stomping around the site... :) Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 18:13, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. HiLo48 (talk) 02:27, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On why non English speakers write on EN

Hi! I saw a thoughtful edit summary!

"Repaired gruesome English. I wish non-English speakers would concentrate on the Wikipedia's in their native tongues, where their help would be much more valuable."

It is good for people to focus on their native language. At the same time English is a global lingua Franca and editors know EN has a broader userbase and more readers than others. That's why Japanese and Korean editors tussle over the Liancourt rocks on EN. Other Wikipedians may believe the existing EN username may not have certain points of information.

So what you may further ask editors to make user space drafts or focus on adding things that aren't yet in English.

PS I edit non English Wikipedias to cover information gaps. I sometimes encounter difficulties with the languages but I believe my participation adds to those Wikipedias. WhisperToMe (talk) 11:48, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with WhisperToMe. English is the main game, and "Speak proper English or GTFO" sounds more like a Septic attitude that Strayan. PS: Enable email ya ratbag bastard! --Shirt58 (talk) 13:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Speak proper English or GTFO" is not an honest paraphrasing of the words I chose. HiLo48 (talk) 20:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Need Some Help on Malaysia Flight 17

I'm getting overwhelmed by the POV pushers, and could use some help trying to make the Lead on Flight 17 NPOV. Talk:Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17#WP_Lead Cadwallader (talk) 14:03, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, yeah, I know. It's just 7.00 am where I live. I've been asleep, and now I'm off to a busy day at work. I'll do my best. You know, my mind has even reached the outrageous extremes of wondering if this whole is event was created as part of the propaganda war, which to many seems to be the main game here. I don't think so, but.... HiLo48 (talk) 20:58, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ymblanter

Hi again HiLo48. I'm not sure what your background is with Ymblanter but as you know the article talk of an article under Arbcom sanctions is not the place to hash it out. If the two of you need some help resolving your differences maybe I can assist. In any case please do not replace the part of the conversation I have removed. I am INVOLVED and cannot threaten sanctions myself but it is likely there will be some consequence if the two of you cannot cool it. Please don't. --John (talk) 11:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ymblanter is a POV pushing ~~Russia~~Putin hater, who incorrectly took me to ANI some time ago because I called him on that behaviour once before, not even realising he was an Admin. He lost the case completely, because what he said about me was simply not true. I suffered no consequence, apart from yet another visit to ANI on my record, which is seen as a negative by the conservatives here, even though I was in the right. Ymblanter experienced no consequence at all. He hates me for what I did - successfully defending myself publicly against his bullshit. He is an Admin who uses that position to abuse Wikipedia procedures to push his POV. He is a very bad Admin, who proves that Admins are a protected species. I am incredibly frustrated about both those facts. I am not even going to look a that article again for now. Wikipedia Admins are allowing bigoted Admins to push POV, and condemning those trying to prevent it. It's time for me to stop trying for a while, again, and maybe add issues involving Russia to my list of areas where it's unsafe to edit on Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 19:01, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You For Welcoming Me

Very much appreciate it. SamathBear (talk) 07:11, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Color

Hello. The thread just seemed to be going in some bizarrely unproductive directions and the talk page header clearly says "Proposals about spelling should be raised at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)." - if you think it might be worth changing ENGVAR policy for certain words, I'm sure you'd have a more constructive discussion over there, it was clearly getting drowned out by I-say-I-say linguistic posturing where it was. By all means unhat it if you disagree, but it looks like I'm the second person to have stepped in on this one. --McGeddon (talk) 21:11, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortuntely the first person to hat it proved he had absolutely no understanding of what I was talking about. And Village Pump doesn't work. It's impossible to get enough people interested in ENGVAR issues there. Oh well, it's like trying to have a high level discussion about the content of some soccer articles. The linguistic capabilities of some fans are not as good as they think they are. Might give it rest until I can find a better forum. HiLo48 (talk) 22:01, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Malaysian Airways Flight MH 17

I agree with your recent comments on Talk entirely. I hope you may be able to edit accordingly, rather than leave me at risk of a block for edit-warring. Thank you Sceptic1954 (talk) 09:47, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of tea for you!

I like your style ! Serten (talk) 12:27, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Many don't. I get in the way of their POV pushing and promotion of irrational thinking. HiLo48 (talk) 21:36, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Meriden School

Hey HiLo, word on the street is that you're Australian and that you can read (the paper) and write (a Wikipedia article). Can you have a look at this article's list of alumni and see if you can write any of them up? I just took care of Elizabeth Broderick. I'm dealing with an editor who seems to think that adding a name to a list is doing something to Counter Systemic Bias, and I thoroughly disagree with that. If you can try your hand at one, or a couple, I'll come back later and see what else I can do. Thanks! Your abusive, power-hungry, football-loving pal, Drmies (talk) 14:41, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do my best. Now, which version of football is that? The one where we kick behinds? HiLo48 (talk) 20:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will add though that the school is in Sydney. I'm in Melbourne, Australia's other big city, 900 km away. Being "notable" in Sydney doesn't always mean that we've heard of them in Melbourne. HiLo48 (talk) 20:54, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Now, Sydney, Melbourne--it's all the same to me. It's kinda like Europeans referring to all Americans as Yankees, even in the South, where "yankee" means something like "cocksucking motherfucker" (that's toned down considerably from what it really means). I wrote up three or four of them, and they are, like, you know, incredibly marginal. But I thought I'd give it a try. Roll Tide, Drmies (talk) 04:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Australia's other big city". I'm sure the people of Brisbane, Adelaide, Perth, Hobart, Newcastle, Geelong, Canberra, Townsville and a few others are pleased to know they're not "big cities". :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:06, 17 August 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Re: ANI comment

Hi. I wanted to talk to you here so as not to digress at AN/I. I'm not sure if you were confused about my intentions. My post there was in the interests of getting Talk:Robin Williams in acceptable order in terms of conduct. The discussions themselves I have had little involvement in. I am not taking sides in any way other than to point out disruption. I did not ask you to bring up other editors, I said feel free to do so, if you feel they should be brought up. Your demeanor seems very confrontational and I'm having trouble understanding why. Perhaps you feel there is some obligation to bring up other editors when I point out one in a sea of incivility. I'm sorry I didn't do my homework and analyze everyone's behaviour. I spoke out about who I knew was being disruptive and who I had warned about it. I also believe they have had a proportionally larger role in the ongoing disruption, as I've previously stated.

You also cited a broken admin system. Speaking for myself, I wish only to know what you think I have done wrong and what I can do to improve on it. I merely wanted to get the Robin Williams talk page in order, not have things turned around on me. If posting at AN/I was wrong, what would have been the proper course of action? Few could argue everything is okay at Talk:Robin Williams. Best — MusikAnimal ^talk 23:09, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WTF? It's posts like this that cause problems too! I have explained the problem back at AN/I. You DID target only one editor. THAT is the problem. Is there a communication failure happening here? HiLo48 (talk) 23:18, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is wrong with my inquiry? I'm only asking for clarification, and ensuring you knew what I meant, in a polite way. No harm there, right? Now, may I ask why pointing out the one editor's behaviour at AN/I is a problem? I have clearly stated why I think they have had a more integral role in the disruption. Remember my goal is cool things off on the talk page. Pointing out this editor I felt may help another admin better assess the situation. Also, if you have anything more to add about the broken admin system and why you think I'm part of it, I'd truly like to know. I'm baffled by your disposition. — MusikAnimal ^talk 23:48, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's simple. Many were misbehaving. You targeted one. That's the wrong approach. HiLo48 (talk) 00:20, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that many were misbehaving, but again I think this editor stood out. You should understand however the AN/I post was an attempt to get help resolving the matter from other admins. I didn't do all the research or know what to do, which is why I'm asking for help. For example, someone who was very much out of line last week is unlikely to get blocked or be subject to preventive measures if they haven't made any disruption since. I'm not going to waste any time mentioning them. The one editor's misbehaviour appears to be persistent. That's why they were "singled out", but I hate saying it that way because it sounds so negative. The fact is, if I can help deter disruption from one user, that's an improvement. We all influence each other in disputes. It's important for everyone to do their part. So, what would have been the right approach? Spend the extra time to outline everyone's conduct, those who haven't been warned, and are less consistently involved in the discussion? Should I turn a blind eye? Unrelated, I don't mean to nag, but I truly am interested in what you meant by the broken admin system. My admin review won't happen until next month, but I'd appreciate any feedback, at any time. — MusikAnimal ^talk 00:37, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At least some of your target's misbehaviour was in response to bad faith editing from others. Without directly addressing the latter, your target can fairly feel victimised. As for the broader Admin system, I have encountered appalling POV pushing behaviour from some Admins. Other Admins have seen it, and agreed with me, but done nothing about it. One such POV pushing Admin took me to ANI because I was getting in the way of his goal. He lost. But that's all. No consequences. Until Admins will censure, block and ban other, badly behaved Admins, they will continue to abuse their position of privilege and drive better, non-Admin editors away. HiLo48 (talk) 00:45, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have expressed I'm not "targeting" my target before, but I will further clarify this with them, politely. You don't have to misbehave because someone else did too. That's my point, to them, but I do understand why they/you feel they are being victimized. I'm also sorry some admins act as you say. I have seen it as well, but rest assured that is not the case here. I've no opinion with what my "target" was saying on the talk page, and if anything, agreed with them. I just didn't like the way they said it. I think the RfA process is much more rigorous these days, which helps, but sadly there will likely always be bad admins. I just don't want to bundled in with them. I like to know what I've done wrong and how I can fix it and/or prevent it moving forward. And on that note, I do thank you for your insight. Best — MusikAnimal ^talk 01:02, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When you saw other Admins acting badly, what did you do about it? HiLo48 (talk) 01:06, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't recall anything in particular in regards to POV pushing, but when I see admins misuse the tools I do let them know. That's the part that makes us different, after all. Any editor that weighs an admin opinion over a non-admin is simply not being fair, I think. For instance, I'm not an admin because of my perfect wisdom, my expert prose in content creation, or my vast experience closing discussions weighing in both sides fairly - none of which are true. I'm an admin because of my anti-vandalism efforts, and my CSD logs. Basically, I had a real need for the tools -- preventing abuse of the wiki. Admins should have great judgment when to use the tools, should be expected to be civil, approachable, and fair, but they should not necessarily be the sole source of what viewpoint is the better. That's a community decision. Non-admins, IPs and all, get to !vote too, with equal weight. — MusikAnimal ^talk 01:20, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I like that post! Pretty much agrees with most of my philosophies. HiLo48 (talk) 01:23, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)Since you both are, in part, discussing me, I'd like to say just a couple of things. First, I never meant to cause or perpetuate disruption at the Williams talk page. I never mean to cause or perpetuate disruption anywhere, actually. I do feel the editor I unloaded on was playing a game of manipulation, I believe the same about the editor who started that subsection, as well. The second editor has been working hard to get something punitive done to me for the last several days. Only he knows why. and I'm not going to speculate. I did feel singled out by your message on my talk page, MusikAnimal, and, in spite of your explanations here, still can't figure out why you saw my comments any worse than what I'd already been dealing with (being drug to 3RR and AN/I by the same editors and being trash-talked to by several more in several locations around the wiki). That said, my strikeout of comments was sincere (my apology to Slave28 was too), and a positive result of you pointing out I was out of line. As I have stated in my user space, I live with Asperger's. One of the major things that will send me into a frustration tailspin faster than anything else is illogical behavior and thought-processes. I saw every person saying "The policy doesn't say that!" behaving and thinking in a completely illogical manner because, the policy does say it. My opinion on that is because our Western culture has become so enamored and wrapped up in celebrity-worship and our younger, dumbed-down editing pool at Wikipedia has no idea what a real encyclopedia looks (and should look) like, we are now seeing the result of all this in these types of editing disputes. They see themselves as integral reporters of "news" rather than writers and refiners of important information. No one cares about what's truly right for an encyclopedia article, just what's cool and gossipy and what makes them feel like they are closer to that celebrity by writing something on the internet seen by millions. But, I digress. If, in the future, you see me do something that's out of line, please do let me know (those of us with Asperger's often don't realize we've committed a social or professional faux pas until it's pointed out to us). 9/10 times, it will have bypassed my "filters", but having it pointed out makes for another lesson learned in what's acceptable and what's not. Like I said, I always try to do the right thing and never want to hurt or disrupt. If I do that, I want to know, so I can analyze and then make the necessary changes to improve myself as well as my interactions with others. Hope this makes sense. Thanks for allowing me to voice my thoughts and concerns here, HiLo48. You and I have butted heads more than once, but it's good to know we aren't polar opposites on everything. I've appreciated your "back-up" in the issues and situations surrounding this sad chain of Wikipedia events. Cheers to you both, -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 01:52, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good post Winkelvi. You raised an issue there that I've been thinking about in the past few days. We now have a generation of teenagers to whom the term "non-encyclopaedic" means nothing at all, because they have never looked at a traditional paper encyclopaedia. They simply don't know how such books were written. And the mainstream "quality" newspapers have all been forced by commercial imperative and the short attention spans of their younger readers to dumb things down as well. I know there's no point complaining about those realities, but I'd like to find a way to educate those who, through no fault of their own, don't know what a proper encyclopaedic article should look like. Maybe some model articles we can always point to? HiLo48 (talk) 02:15, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is something I feel inclined to say at this point...

I have discovered over the years that I make the bed that I lie in. I can be an incredible asshole when provoked and have done very embarrassing things when warring with others in the past. Just ask Viriditas. LOL! (no....seriously.. I'll show you if you want...I have no shame. ;-) ). But over time there have been some very good influences on me that overshadow the resentment. These are not situations...they are editors and administrators (yeah...I know...I rail against the "machine" a lot, but that very machine influences me more than I think I have been willing to admit in the past) and just people. And people can be very judgmental. Take the judgment as the real criticism it is and do not fall into that pit of resentment of the words from others. Take them to heart and parse them. Think about it all as an art. We are mostly a group of meticulous researchers and we can be very opinionated. As a "wiki"pedian...think of that term. It is Hawaiian. Wiki is Hawaiian for "quick".....but another wonderful and relevant Hawaiian phrase is Aloha. Did you know it doesn't just mean hello and goodbye. Think about it, if even just briefly. Happy editing Hilo48!--Mark Miller (talk) 02:45, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I like that Aloha page. Thanks. On the opinion front, I take pride in the fact that on the occasion of a couple of recent elections in different countries I was accused by supporters of both sides of taking the other side. I work bloody hard to keep my own opinion (a strong one at times, I'll admit) out of my editing. Many here don't. And more and more that seems to be accepted as the norm. That whole thing at AN/I came from one editor wanting to use the word "poached" and me wanting "recruited". I could have pushed for a much more POV word, like "attracted", but I don't edit like that. I have thought an awful lot about that other editor. I didn't believe it was possible at first, but I'm beginning to suspect that his adoration of his favourite sport really is so strong that he cannot see the problem with his POV position. He doesn't see it as a POV position. It's simply that he supports that game so that MUST be his position. Does that make sense? See, I've been trying quite hard to understand his position. That's the kindest interpretation I can put on it. Someone once said "They know not what they do." I think that applies here. Sport. Religion. All the same really. HiLo48 (talk) 06:54, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

Greetings. I have been nominated for a 1-year ~~block~~ topic ban due to my nomination of American-led intervention in Iraq for deletion, creating a disambiguation page, "getting" a page locked from IP editing, "opinionating on stuff" [sic] (in ref to ANI discussion of HiLo48), and 13 other reasons. You may have participated in a discussion in something related to that. As a courtesy, I am letting persons who participated in a discussion relating to one of those topics know in case they would like to support, oppose, or express indifference to the proposed block. You can register your opinion here: ANI Incidents (This is a blanket, non-canvassing note.) DocumentError (talk) 02:23, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look

This is an interesting turn of events [6]. I'll let you draw your own conclusions. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:36, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just confused. Who is reporting whom, for what, and why? HiLo48 (talk) 22:11, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I reported an IP for harassment on my talk page. I found it interesting that after I noted the same IP had also harassed another editor a couple of years ago and that the IP appeared to be a sock (also noted a CU would be helpful even though I realized it wouldn't happen), a particular editor showed up out of the blue to state my report was inappropriate. One is forced to wonder why the sudden interest in what I report to a noticeboard when they aren't involved. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:14, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I did notice that familiar visitor. So you're right. Interesting. HiLo48 (talk) 22:19, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AFD process

If you believe that a person is not notable to have an article, nominate it for for deletion. At the same time, I am warning you not to do so in the case of Chelsea Clinton, as it will result in a speedy keep. But that is the process, not bugging everybody about it. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:50, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Name another child of an elected leader from anywhere in the world, ever, who has their own article, for no other reason than they are a child of an elected leader. I genuinely don't understand this religion of worshipping Chelsea Clinton. HiLo48 (talk) 23:22, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, there are such articles (the children of Gerald Ford, for instance) where "notability" is based on their parentage, only. At least two of Ford's children shouldn't have articles, as they are not notable in their own right. The articles on them consist of Enquirer-style tabloid garbage, Hollywood gossip, and the fact that one son is a minister. That's "notable" enough for an encyclopedia article? Seems that is the way of Wikipedia these days: read it in a tabloid or an obituary and it's eligible for inclusion. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:34, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks about those Ford kids. I'm genuinely curious about this. Are there others? Any non-Americans? HiLo48 (talk) 23:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I'm not interested enough to look for more. If you are interested to find more, and do so, I'd be interested, however, in reading what you dig up. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:59, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HiLo, I reckon you've been around long enough to have some understanding of our category system. Chelsea Clinton is in a number of categories, including Children of Presidents of the United States, which contains no less than 102 articles, as well as an entire sub-category of 25 articles on the Jefferson family alone. "Children of Presidents of the United States" is part of various bigger picture categories, including Children of national leaders, which lists 273 other people. Maybe you can explain just exactly why you're singling out Chelsea Clinton from these 399 similar cases? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:17, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cos she just had a baby, and some editors got quite excited about it. HiLo48 (talk) 00:39, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So your definition of excited is "wanted to include the child's name?" Get a grip and stop flogging the dead horse. -- Calidum 01:22, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That would be one of several. HiLo48 (talk) 01:24, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So where was all this righteous indignation over including the names of Roger Federer's sons? Is it because Chelsea is American? A woman? -- Calidum 01:30, 6 October 2014 (UTC) [reply]

I think that's wrong too. Hadn't heard of it before now. Next? HiLo48 (talk) 01:40, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paulina Gretzky, is an example. GoodDay (talk) 21:13, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's a funny example to pick. I happen to be one of a minority of people in my country who would know the significance of that surname. More Australians use a ball when they play hockey, so won't even know why her dad is famous. And Paulina's article describes her as a Celebutante, which links to the article Famous for being famous, also defined as "famous for nothing". Interesting cultural stuff. (I note that she is also described as a model and pop singer. Is she good enough at those professions to be famous in her own right?) HiLo48 (talk) 22:49, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I recall right, I pushed for her article to be deleted years ago, but didn't get anywheres. GoodDay (talk) 00:52, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not surprised. HiLo48 (talk) 01:02, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gawd

What a huge load of horseshit. You know what I'm referring to and where it is being unloaded. Gawd. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:35, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's called editorial judgement. By some. HiLo48 (talk) 03:28, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I call it immature amateurs with battleground mentality pretending they are editors. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:32, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say that I often wonder what age ranges we're dealing with in some of the more intense discussions on Wikipedia. A youthful certainty and arrogance could be at least part of an explanation for what we so regularly see. But not an excuse. HiLo48 (talk) 03:40, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested...

I've created the page on Operation Okra. Feel free to contribute to the article. -Keepdry (talk) 08:25, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A real shame

It's a shame to see you quit the Sellers page. Although I understand why, I still think it's a major loss for wikipedia. I for one am going to miss seeing your input. You're a good editor and I hope one day you consider returning. Caden ^cool 21:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of areas on Wikipedia where I have chosen to no longer be active because of the toxic environment there. They include Sellers, anything to do with guns in the USA and Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, plus a few more. In each case at least one POV pushing Administrator has openly chosen one side of the debate to support, effectively giving free reign to the other POV pushers active on those pages. It's obvious that other Admins know about the bad Admin behaviour, but none has the guts to do anything about it. This makes it dangerous in just too many ways. Maybe things will change in the future, in which case I may return to those areas, but I see no sign of it at the moment. Our Admin system is broken. Maybe some wiser Admins will help to fix the problem one day. Until they do, Wikipedia is heading downhill. Not too rapidly yet, but nobody is applying the brakes. HiLo48 (talk) 21:36, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with you and I understand. Maybe things will change, at least I hope so. The mess on Sellers indicates to me it may never change. It's like that with many other articles too where the environment becomes toxic due to POV pushing, personal attacks, vulgar language, article ownership, and agenda games. And yes, the admin system is broken so that doesn't help. Regardless, I'm sorry to see you go. Caden ^cool 22:05, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Poisoned Chalice?

(Attempted warning and piece of friendly advice.) I may be wrong, but I suspect you really don't want to get involved in removing flags from infoboxes. To me, it sounds like an endless and thankless task, very likely to involve you in endless unpleasant talkpage discussions. If I were you, I'd avoid it like ~~the plague~~ the ebola virus. I'm fairly confident you have more interesting, more useful, more enjoyable, and more productive ways to spend your time. Good luck and Best wishes, Pdfpdf (talk) 08:34, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You got a mention

Are you aware that you got a mention here? You will find a number of the others mentioned have commented on the talk page at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender Gap Task Force/Evidence#There's a first time for everything. Richerman (talk) 23:36, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. What a load of bullshit. That's so stupid I'm not even sure I can be bothered responding. Busy right now too. Might get around to it, but I suspect the whole thing will get thrown out of court pretty soon. HiLo48 (talk) 01:19, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IBAN begone?

I believe WP:ARCA, is the place to go. GoodDay (talk) 21:52, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Hi HiLo48, thank you for your very wise comments at ANI and for guiding the discussion. And thank you for thinking I'm brave, lol. USchick (talk) 22:23, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, that's cool. I just looked at your Userboxes. I like your "Citizen of the World" one. I wish more people would try to take a global perspective on things. HiLo48 (talk) 22:58, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mainframes

Re this edit, nice to know I'm not the only former dinosaur around here. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 18:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. I'm now a high school teacher, with IT as one of my subject areas. I'm really good at boring the kids with "When I was young...." HiLo48 (talk) 21:25, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"... restart was called 'IPL'." ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 21:33, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. HiLo48 (talk) 21:57, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Kylie Maybury

Could you take a look at Murder of Kylie Maybury?

Maybe you could help me expand it?

Paul Austin (talk) 16:24, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Self affirmation

Regarding this (and its edit comment). Thank you. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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) 09:29, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Personal, incivil comments

Despite my earlier caution, you are continuing to make personal comments to shout down other contributors' remarks at Wikipedia talk:Naming_conventions (Football in Australia)#Football (soccer), especially towards Macosal and Pete. In particular:

"Are you proud of that?";
"a name that no normal person actually uses", implying anyone who uses "football" to refer to the sport is not "normal", which is offensive;
"Pete, just piss off", in response to a request to avoid personal comments;
"If you're offended by 'soccer', don't come to Melbourne", in an edit summary, which echoes the anti-immigrant slogan "If you don't like it, leave".

As a matter of Wikipedia policy, users are cautioned to avoid personal comments:

As a matter of polite and effective discourse, comments should not be personalized. That is, they should be directed at content and actions rather than people.

You should also be aware that making personal comments undermines the credibility of your arguments on the issue.

Although editors are encouraged to ignore or respond politely to isolated personal attacks, that should not imply that they are acceptable. A pattern of hostility reduces the likelihood of the community assuming good faith, and can be considered disruptive editing. Users who insist on a confrontational style marked by personal attacks are likely to become involved in the dispute resolution process, and may face serious consequences through arbitration.

Please, be civil, avoid personal remarks and focus on the issue rather than the individual. Thank you. —sroc 💬 03:48, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Despite and because of your request that I "fuck off", I am required to leave this here.

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is HiLo48. Thank you.. —sroc 💬 09:24, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I don't think I need to tell you about the unacceptable behaviour you've exhibited over the past few hours, but I'll do so anyway. WP:NPA is a policy you should be well aware of. Also, removing someone else's post regarding your behavioural problems is completely unacceptable. As such, you've been blocked for a month, based on this and past instances of bad behaviour. For reviewing admins: you are free to adjust duration of block at your discretion. —Dark 09:35, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HiLo, I can go to bat for you and can consider shortening the block, but I think you know what we (that is, me, others, and the original blocking admin) need to hear from you...no grovelling necessary, but promises will have to be made. Thanks, and take it easy, Drmies (talk) 17:58, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HiLo, I have no idea what the problem is because I'm not following you, but whatever it is, please work it out. I like having your voice of reason once in a while. USchick (talk) 18:13, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who has himself clearly expressed reservations about your conduct in the past, as you well know, I also think that perhaps given the recent GGTF controversy and the possibility/probability that there might be some form of cultural bias implicit in the existing civility policy, that there might be a way potentially to reduce the length of the block. Maybe. However, I also agree with Drmies that basically "promises will have to be made." Looking forward to your response.
Alternately, if you so choose, there are ways to spend the time you would spend online here, even up to a month, in ways productive to the community. I know it took me a month to go through the Brill/Eerdmans Encyclopedia of Christianity to assemble the list of articles from it now at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Encyclopedic articles, and have every reason to believe that the project would benefit from having similar pages relating to Australia, or education, or other topics assembled as well. Sometimes, "enforced breaks" of some sort are the best way to get together the time to do such. John Carter (talk) 18:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) Agreed, the facts as presented are not that you came in with curses blaring from the get go, but that after saying "are you proud of that" as if it were some sort of secret obscenity (!) you were pestered, responded civilly, then once your goat was finally got you were hounded even to your own talk page. I am quite aware that you can be abrasive, HiLo, but Drmies is correct here in offering you clemency. μηδείς (talk) 18:21, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

agreed, post-hoc pestering and predictions of future thoughtcrime by the user is simply unwarranted

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I would hardly say HiLo48 "responded civilly": he refused to back down on making personal remarks and focus on the issues under discussion, and then responded with an escalating series of abuse ("piss off" → "bullshit" → "FUCK OFF!"). I would have let it go until he told me to "fuck off", which was the final straw which led me to AN/I (a step I've never taken before). Then to compound matters, instead of backing down or explaining his side, he just deleted the AN/I, which is obviously unacceptable and led to the block being imposed. He has form, doesn't learn from his actions and instead blames others when things are against him. —sroc 💬 04:23, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HiLo is blocked, and I think I've asked for him to be blocked in the past because of his incivility. In this case, sroc...fuck off. Go away. Get off his talk page and stop pestering him. --Onorem (talk) 05:57, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yeah, while you have the time, you might consider archiving this page. It seems to include about 5 years of comments and around 118 threads. That's kinda long. John Carter (talk) 18:48, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that HiLo48 simply deletes negative feedback, often labelled as "bullshit", as if to hide it from view or shut down conversation. Expect this whole section to be removed rather than any of the last five years archived. —sroc 💬 04:23, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

hatted in agreement with Onorem. We don't post predictions of future evil acts as a way to attack users. μηδείς (talk)

== Email ==

G'day mate, could you send me an email via the link on my user page? - Nick Thorne ^talk 01:00, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Invite still valid, thought we could catch up over a cup of coffee sometime... - Nick Thorne ^talk 06:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An apology

In the heat of the moment last night, while doing my best to educate some wilfully ignorant, vexatious, POV pushers, I inadvertently deleted an entry about me from AN/I. That was completely unintentional, and I apologise. I actually realised my mistake within seconds, but couldn't fix it because I had been blocked by what must be one of Wikipedia's most trigger happy Admins. I note this is given as part of the reason for my block. It's an unreasonable part. I made a mistake and wasn't given time to fix it.

This isn't an appeal to have my block lifted. Just a hope that some sanity will prevail and the reason for my block will be changed. Right now I have little interest in being part of a community that encourages wilful ignorance, POV pushing, edit warring, and harassment, by blocking someone trying to discourage such behaviour.HiLo48 (talk) 06:51, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just as an aside, your goals are honorable, but perhaps your methods work counter to your goals. When you return, it may be worthwhile to consider your actions in light of what you want to accomplish, and whether what you do at Wikipedia (especially how you choose to express yourself and the words you craft to do so) are likely to achieve the noble ends you desire, or whether they are likely to work counter to your aims and actually make it harder to accomplish your ends. You have ample data as to how your words and actions in the past have or have not produced results that do, or do not, achieve your goals. It may be time to analyze that data and adjust your approach based on what that data tells you is the results of what you've already tried. Just a thought. --Jayron32 13:44, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree. If your belief is that the behavior which led to the block was done in the goal of "trying to discourage such behaviour" in others, there seems to be a real question about why you might seem to think that behavior of the type you indulged in, which was apparently sufficient for a block, has any real hope of attempting to achieve that goal. I know that I am the last person to say that others shouldn't lose their tempers, consider I know I do so often enough myself, but I also know that the best way to calm a situation is not by responding with in-kind incivility, but trying to defuse the situation in general.

And, again, knowing that some might think that I am just plugging my own ideas here, in a lot of cases that I've seen arguments can be best resolved by quickly and readily finding some of the best available sources which make explicit statements about the points of contention. I seem to remember some website which shows the front pages of multiple world newspapers on a daily basis, for instance. That site would be really valuable in determining what to include in the "In the news" section of the front page. Finding sources of that type, or of general reference types, which can be used by anyone interested to help develop or update content is probably one of the best and easiest (if time consuming), and least controversial things an editor could do around here. John Carter (talk) 15:29, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HiLo48, Jayron32 puts it nicely, while John Carter is suggesting you remove the plank from your own eye. I'm going to make it easier for you to comprehend: Referring to DarkFalls as 'one of Wikipedia's most trigger happy Admins' is yet another irascible comment and is not going to motivate anyone to consider shortening or lifting the block of an editor who has a trigger happy penchant for expressing themselves in an inflammatory tone - as six other respected sysops have already more than adequately demonstrated. Your obdurate response to our recent interaction also demonstrates (to me at least) that your actual editing may be more important to you than the quality of your collaboration with others and that now makes a total of 8 admins, none of whom are particularly quick on the block button. Do accord Jayron32's wise words some careful consideration, they won't shorten your block or change its rationale, but they might help you prevent your block log from getting any longer. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:47, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your block has be mentioned at ANI

I mentioned your block at ANI in comparison to the use of "Fuck you" by other users who have not even been warned for their behavior. Feel free to comment here, Hilo48, should you wish. μηδείς (talk) 21:17, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Case closed. Nothing to see there. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:30, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Odd to see that Kudpung chastises Hilo above, then tells him here not even to look at a separate matter. HiLo's invited to comment here or email who he likes and to read whatever thread interests him. μηδείς (talk) 22:40, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can see saying "case closed" if in fact the case was in fact closed, which it was until you commented further. Having said that, the case now appears to be sort of open again, and there isn't any reason to respond now to not respond to the admittedly somewhat confusing look of the existing thread. John Carter (talk) 22:54, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Medeis needs to look up the word chastise in a dictionary. What I have written above is simply fact-based straight talking - things which have needed to be said. Anyone who uses it to take yet another swipe at admins for just doing their job may wish to decide whether they also want to retire. If they do, in spite of WP:WER, I won't stand in their way.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:11, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This place is broken. I'm quitting

Many of you have now written thousands of words above telling how I must change.

I doubt if, during that time, any of you have done anything about, or said a single negative word to the wilfully ignorant, vexatious, POV pushers or to the Talk page harassers to whom I was responding.

Or to the trigger happy, power abusing and POV pushing Admins I have been resisting here for years. Or to the haters, god botherers and bigots. (A lot of overlap there.)

Or about Wikipedia's systemic bias in favour of the dominant cultures, that seems to be getting worse every day.

No, in your minds it's more important to tackle a couple of naughty wards on Talk pages, rather than the real problems with this encyclopaedia.

I know I've made a positive difference on Wikipedia. There are many threads above attesting to that. (Even though one moron just above didn't even like seeing them!) But now this place is spitting me out (as well as on me).

So I'll leave.

Don't try to talk me out of it. I have many other constructive things to do in my life. They beckon now. Use your energy to address the problems that have pushed me out.

Goodbye. HiLo48 (talk) 20:31, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I'd appreciate it if someone would mention my decision here over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention. HiLo48 (talk) 20:31, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retire? no you don't. I served a week block, a month block & a year ban & I didn't quit. I understand your frustrations, but dang don't you quit. If you feel as though others are trying to drive you away, then be more determined to hang around. GoodDay (talk) 20:48, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your request for those reading your comments above to not try to talk you out of quitting. That said, I will still say this to you: I wish that instead of quitting altogether you would just take the month break and come back fresh with a new perspective. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:38, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to see you go. You know how to contact me if you want to talk. --Bduke (Discussion) 04:48, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notwithstanding your focus on "wilfully ignorant, vexatious, POV pushers" and refusal to apologise for incivility, I do hope you come back (with a less acidic tongue). You have been a valuable (if abrasive) contributor whom I happen to agree with on the "soccer" issue and I'm pushing to have any further decisions delayed until your block is lifted. —sroc 💬 05:17, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "This place is broken". As someone wrote on my talk page recently, "there seem to be more than the average number of idiots around at the moment".

(And there are always plenty of pedants and people who never let the facts get in the way of their various points of view.)

There are, however, editors like me who appreciate your presence; our lives will be poorer in your absence. Best wishes, Pdfpdf (talk) 06:08, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The place is a mess, the users denying the mess are generally the ones making the mess. Hopefully you can find something meaningful to replace your time here - otherwise see you in six months. Hack (talk) 06:13, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HiLo, the only sane decision is to clear Dodge in such a stupid, abusive environment as WP offers its contributors. I was fooled when first signing up to edit, until it became clear the admin structure here encourages grudges and tool-misuse to enforce same, and admin corps have unspoken culture to almost never intervene, and certainly there's no way to de-sysop without too many editors being mowed down by abusive admins first. Jimbo has said that a solution is that adminship should be "easier to get and easier to lose", IMO he is right, but nothing much ever changes here (I've been looking at archives and the same abusive admin environment against content contributors was well in force in 2007 and I'm sure earlier than that as well). According to admin Floquenbeam the state of things is "near anarchy" and I'm sure abusive admins flourish in such an environment and love it a whole lot. It's corrupt here. Might makes right. Really dumb. Is it because WP is so young, it got shoved off from port with a dismally thought-out dysfunctional structure, and lacks the ability to right itself? (IMO yes.) The only ones I know who defend the structure including AN/ANI cesspools are the abusive admins (duh). I've proposed a kernel of idea for WP structural reform/redesign by the most intelligent & talented people here that know the problems & solutions, but of course deaf ears on that. And attacks and insults. GO TEAM!! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:52, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HiLo! Happy Australia Lawmaking Day!

I woke up yesterday morning and it was Australia Happy Lawmaking Day in my dream (the day that Australians celebrate that they make laws, democratically, or some such thing), so I wished Mr(s). Drmies a Happy Australia Lawmaking Day when she woke up, and then I fell asleep again. When I woke up I tried to make a note to let you know, since you're my main Australian, but I forgot. Anyway, a day late, but still: Happy Australia Lawmaking Day! Drmies (talk) 05:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HiLo

I've only had a few interactions with you - most notably during the incredibly frustrating Collingwoodwhatever ANI case - and I quite understand your inclination not to go on. But I'd like to add my voice to those encouraging you to keep on keeping on. You are good at what you do here. Cheers anyway and Happy Australia Day.Nickm57 (talk) 02:31, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia may not want me either, but I'm sticking around. GoodDay (talk) 17:04, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed sad to see another familiar signature disappear!

--220 of ^Borg 10:48, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you come back, mate. - HappyWaldo (talk) 11:02, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Melbourne". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Scorch (talk | ctrb) 10:51, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you!

Here's to 2016. Drmies (talk) 21:09, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair Use in Australia discussion

As an Australian Wikipedian, your opinion is sought on a proposal to advocate for the introduction of Fair Use into Australian copyright law. The discussion is taking place at the Australian Wikipedians' notice board, please read the proposal and comment there. MediaWiki message delivery MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:07, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This message has been automatically sent to all users in Category:Australian Wikipedians. If you do not wish to receive further messages like this, please either remove your user page from this category, or add yourself to Category:Opted-out of message delivery

Welcome home!

Nice to see you here again HiLo48. You've been missed. Nickm57 (talk) 03:27, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. We’ve had some sharp disagreements, but I think the project is all the stronger with you aboard. Cheers! Jusdafax (talk) 03:31, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys. I thought I'd have another try. Trouble is, I've already seen some POV pushing from people such as Catholics resisting anything that suggests their church is anything but perfect, and American gun enthusiasts, hurling NRA slogans like they're going put of style. Neither example was in response to anything I had said or done. I was just browsing. But it just shows that Wikipedia still cannot effectively manage such things. Oh, and I've been told just an hour ago that a revert I made on Dawn Fraser is absurd. That IP editor is now effectively edit-warring with two of us, and to do anything about it takes what I see as just too much work. I'm already wondering again if it's all worth it. HiLo48 (talk) 04:37, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hang in there, and do what you can within the sometimes fluctuating parameters here. After all, it’s just Wikipedia! Jusdafax (talk) 04:48, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. From someone who seldom agrees with you on anything, but as you know tries to help keep Wikipedia from beating you up. Or as I wrote in the Barnstar a long time ago: "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." Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:01, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back HiLo48. It's great to see you again! I hope you're doing well.- Mr X 🖋 13:43, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great to see you back, HiLo48 :) GoodDay (talk) 23:49, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you North8000, MrX and GoodDay. Not much seems to have changed here during my four year sabbatical. I've noticed that the most obscure people now have their deaths reported on In The News. I guess it avoids argument to just list everyone who has an article. And some really dumb, ill-informed comments are still made in the relevant discussions. Like the guy complaining that the 2018 Commonwealth Games article had not has many results updates, at 8.20 am on the first day of competition. And the POV pushers! Every-bloody-where! I think that problem's actually worse than it was four years ago. HiLo48 (talk) 00:02, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fucken oath - as we say in Tasmanian English - it's good to see you back, you ratbag bastard. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 13:30, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, has fucken swearing become OK here now? I always found that others could abuse, push POVs, post nosensical conspiracy stuff, and insist that Wikipedia must say Jesus is real, but swearing (or cursing, as those Americans call it) got you a month's block. HiLo48 (talk) 00:10, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to hell. Here's your accordion. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:34, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a five-year stretch with a third off for good behaviour ;) nice one HiLo, it was great seeing you pop up on the watchlist again. "Don't let the buggers get you down" and all that! —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 08:51, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

March for Our Guns

If you look at the source, it was a response to March for Our Lives. I also heard this on a news report.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:04, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you're right. But that doesn't make such content relevant to the March for Our Lives article. HiLo48 (talk) 22:13, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That, of course, is your opinion. The way the second rally was described certainly made it sound relevant. You didn't hear the newscast I did. I looked several times but never found that story.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:01, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I post something about tourism in Wikipedia and they remove it when I write something I add only more information like any user do in Wikipedia. Thank you. Mustafa.ccc (talk) 09:10, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

american politics ds notice

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Template:Z33

What a silly comment. HiLo48 (talk) 06:06, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Soccer vs Football at 2028 Summer Olympics

I'm right behind you on this one. I notice that Drmargi is from California and is probably an American patriot who objects to the word "football" on principle because it's so English. If this gets out of hand, I suggest we poll some of the other editors to get their opinions and take a vote. In my opinion, it's a no-brainer. Rodney Baggins (talk) 10:58, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Badger

Re: [7]

Simple observation tells us that minds are very rarely changed by discussion. As a practical matter, that is not a "winnable debate"; closers are not debate judges and do not assess consensus by weighing strength of arguments when there is little policy basis involved; in such discussions they count the !votes and summarize the arguments. While a few new arrivals arrive undecided and may find your arguments convincing, repeating the arguments after the first two or three times merely (1) reduces the amount of the discussion that will be read by new arrivals, (2) for those who do read a lot of it, gives unfair emphasis to your viewpoint, and (3) makes the closer's job considerably more difficult, reducing the number of editors who are willing to do it and increasing the ever-present backlog.
This is the logic behind WP:BADGER as I interpret it. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:07, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am badgering nobody. I have had many discussions around the naming of Association Football, in many places over many years. My arguments helped establish Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Football in Australia). I have studied this area extensively. I know what I am talking about. I get rather sick of contributors who don't know what they're talking about, don't realise that, and who have insular and poorly informed views, acting like they do know what they're talking about. Such ignorant (and quite often non-neutral POV) contributions are what harm Wikipedia, not the facts that I can offer. Leaving false claims unchallenged would be the wrong thing to do, IMHO.

BTW - Facts and open discussion DO change minds. If they didn't, Talk pages might as well be abolished. HiLo48 (talk) 09:45, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Facts and open discussion DO change minds. I would love to see evidence of a significant amount of that, but I haven't yet despite paying close attention for 5 years. I believe that the threaded-discussion part of most discussions is in fact a cost-benefit fail, that the arguments can be adequately expressed in !votes, and that for the most part threaded discussion is little more than an opportunity for people to argue with each other.
But this is another unwinnable debate, so carry on. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:55, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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 this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Robert McClenon (talk) 02:08, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pls look at ...

Hello HiLo48, I feel some misunderstanding between us. Pls have a look at: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Firearms#March_for_Our_Lives_on_Mainpage_of_german_Portal:Arms. Best --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 17:49, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think that there is some misunderstanding. It seems that English is not your first language, and I, as pretty much exclusively an English speaker, do get confused at times by some of what you write. HiLo48 (talk) 21:41, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sry for inconveniences .. my first language is german and my en:skills got pretty "rusty" in the last 30 years. I asked for help so much because I feel about my deficits in en:skills ... but thinking international is no problem :-) Oh ... it would be so fine I found someone who dares to do the shortenings in the articles. Best --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 22:03, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you are aware

The political correctness article is actually locked down. Three editors control the article. There have been essentially zero edits in the last year made by anyone else. Every edit made by other users has been reverted (you can check and see). My advice is get the permission of the controlling editors BEFORE making an edit and you will save yourself a lot of time. And yes, you are correct, I believe it is a political thing, although I'll be damned if I understand why. But for now the article must take the stance that political correctness does not exist. Starcader (talk) 04:35, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip. I did get the impression there was some ownership at play there. That would at least partly explain the weird and insulting Edit summaries. Real insider stuff. HiLo48 (talk) 04:38, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question, when you have encountered ownership in the past, how did you handle it? Is there a recourse for this type of thing? Regarding the PC page, it's a small group of editors, so tag-teaming and the like is the order of the day. It did not really bother me one way or another until I noticed that while the page attracts many contributors, every lasting edit to the article has been made by a very small group. Any new contributor will quickly have his or her work undone. Starcader (talk) 19:46, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Only try to add very well sourced content, and get some good Admins on your side. I got to know some when some bad Administrators didn't like my open-minded approach to things, and the good guys defended me. (Perhaps not the best way!) Wikipedia is not perfect, and has massive systemic biases built into its editing. So one less than perfect solution to problems like those with this article is to just give up on it so you don't stress out too much, but do keep talking about those biases. HiLo48 (talk) 22:24, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking text at the “white people” article

I reverted an edit you made there in which you left an ambiguous summary and made no challenge or alternative to the existing source. If this was an oversight, please provide your reasons for removing the text either in a detailed summary, by adding a new citation or by explaining the edit on the talk page. If however, you were editing based on your own point of view regarding the sourced text, please don’t do that as aside from being against policy, it makes it hard to trace the origins of the text included in (or omitted from) the article. Thanks Edaham (talk) 00:37, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about the other countries, but to describe a concept of white Australia in the present tense is ridiculous and offensive. The White Australia Policy has been gone since 1973. Only a tiny minority of racist Australians use the term. You mention sources. The ONLY source attached to that lead does not mention Australia. I have no idea where your content comes from. Can you tell us and other Wikipedia readers with an actual source? HiLo48 (talk) 02:48, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "my content" I'm an uninvolved editor and I happen to have that page and some others like it on my watch list. I reverted you because your edit didn't seem to be related to any particular sourced content. Challenging and explaining edits which seem ambiguous is a natural part of the editing process. It's also possible that you had a perfectly good reason and I simply couldn't understand what the edit was about. Mistakes happen. There are three sources in a section which deal specifically with Australia. It is possible that the lead summarizes a part of what is written there (see here regarding lead citation requirements). Its possible that the lead incorrectly summarizes what is written in these sources. In this case, removing the text with an edit summary of "information not supported by source" would have been appropriate. Further more, had I seen such a summary, not really knowing much about the subject, I probably would have left it for another editor to deal with. I was really only scanning for ambiguous and misleading summaries, which are common on this particular article. Many thanks for your time. Edaham (talk) 03:13, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I looked. There was no source supporting that content. It was wrong. Most Australians today rarely mention race. We are not labelled according to race by the government or anyone else. It is a point of pride in the country. My Edit summary was fine. HiLo48 (talk) 04:04, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't revert your edit because there was something wrong with it, I reverted it because it deserved open discussion and more in-depth explanation and BRD is a useful facility for expediting that process. There's now a discussion on that talk page and I hope it will bring more issues with that article to the forefront, besides the specific part which caught your attention. Edaham (talk) 07:21, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request for third opinion

Hey Hilo48, as you are one of the regular contributors to Australian rules pages, I would like to request a WP:THIRD opinion on an editing dispute over at Australian rules football. The discussion is here. For context, this is what the article looked like prior to the other editor reverting my additions (so that editor's work is the current version of the article). The editor has particular issue with the sourced statement on Australian rules being played in England in 1888 (formerly the opening sentence of the "Global reach" section), and material on women's football. Thanks. - HappyWaldo (talk) 02:45, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Heathmont College, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Athletics (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:06, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain...

...this revert which you state in your edit summary, (→‎North Korea: No clear connection with Trump's presidency). The cited WaPo article states: Pompeo, who was confirmed by the Senate Thursday as secretary of state, was the president's envoy for a preliminary meeting ahead of Trump's planned summit with Kim, which he has said would take place in late May or early June. What makes you think the secret meeting had no clear connection to Trump's presidency? It simply happened sooner than later. Please revert your edit because it is not supported by the RS you cited. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:34, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be mixing up two different meetings - one being that of Trump with Kim (which, of course, has not occured - we'll mention it if it does), the other being that between the two Korean leaders. It was mention of the latter I deleted, because there is no clear link between Pompeo's visit and that meeting. HiLo48 (talk) 23:40, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You for Watching BLP Articles Edited By an IP Editor

Also, you need to archive your talk page. - 47.208.9.47 (talk) 05:42, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not if you don't feel like it, you don't. Un school 03:13, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BS is not swearing; it's a Barnstar!

		The Minor Barnstar
		I wish there was a barnstar for Edit Summaries, for that is what this truly is for. I completely enjoyed your understated edit summary here at Trans fat. Thanks; you made me smile! Un school 03:12, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive revert

If you take issue with an editor over the presence of a single word, then put back in that single word rather than destroy the rest of the edit which is unaffected. Every editor is being more than accommodating to your concerns about globalization, but repeating the word American twice in one sentence is probably a bit much. Tone it down, please. If you truly want to globalize this article, help by sourcing studies, articles, etc. from around the world that lend to the topic. -- Netoholic @ 03:57, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article is a load of paranoid, American crap. That needs to be emphasised. I have made it clear many times why it's pointless trying to globalise this whining mess. HiLo48 (talk) 04:00, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you can help that by finding global sources or studies on non-English Wikipedias. You cannot help that by doing reverts which don't target the precise issue you think there is. -- Netoholic @ 04:25, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat, "I have made it clear many times why it's pointless trying to globalise that whining mess". It's sad that you don't see the problem. I see a number of areas of ignorance on Wikipedia that require ongoing vigilance. One is soccer fans all over the world among whom many don't realise that there are other games called football out there. The one I think we're seeing here is those Americans who don't realise how conservative their country is compared with the rest of the world. HiLo48 (talk) 04:35, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One option for m:Wikistress about an article is to just unwatch it. Come back and see it in a few weeks or couple months. Give it time to develop. If there is one person hearing your feedback, its me - I'm the one globalizing most of the links and including "U.S." in the prose. Should be careful about your assumptions. -- Netoholic @ 04:46, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot globalise the article, for reasons I have explained many times. 11:37, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

June 2018

Calling fellow editors "whiners" as you did here (diff) is a personal attack. Continued incivility will be sanctioned. – Lionel^(talk) 06:00, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rubbish. The worst HiLo48 can be accused of there is calling a spade a bloody shovel. If you're going to get your knickers in a twist over someone calling the thin skinned brigade "whiners", I suggest Wikipedia may not be the place for you. - Nick Thorne ^talk 06:09, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Nick. User:Lionelt, that whole article effectively involves American conservatives describing most contributors to Wikipedia as biased. Are you going to ask for its deletion, and sanction anyone supporting it? Unfortunately, those doing it, presumably including yourself, cannot see that they are doing that. A lot of those (almost all Americans - I've seen none who aren't) complaining about Wikipedia's alleged bias (is that safe enough to say?) have no idea of their own biases. I am very aware of mine, but try to keep them out of my editing. I would probably be described as centre-left in my country (and in most of the world), although I diverge from that simplistic, linear spectrum dramatically on some issues. Those Americans complaining about Wikipedia's alleged bias would probably call me nasty things like an extreme liberal, or even worse, a socialist! (NOTE: Australia's major conservative political party is the Liberal Party of Australia). So, can we delete the whole thread, with its implied incivility to most Wikipedians? HiLo48 (talk) 08:00, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gasoline

Hi, you reverted some edits I did on Gasoline (I only edit on IP, as I find that having an account makes people indignant) Anyways, this has been hashed out for years, and, alas, MOS shows that we are to have the same style of english throughout an article, including parts where we discuss other regions. I can hunt down the RFC we had for this ages ago if you'd like, but it makes pretty good sense, otherwise, we would just have british english editors coming into every article that is in American English and writing sections that would get bigger and bigger and bigger to try to force out the colonial spelling, or vice versa.

Cheers, IPuser — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:CA32:CC00:44CA:4C54:1039:DDA7 (talk) 10:02, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That may be policy, but it makes the sections about the parts of the world that call the stuff petrol read ridiculously. Nobody in the UK, or my country, Australia, EVER calls the stuff gasoline. So you are describing things in Australia using language Australians simply don't use. Can you see how silly that is? I reserve my right to describe policy in this area as stupid. HiLo48 (talk) 10:08, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re Bastiaan

Just because gay marriage is Legal does not mean it is all over did the 1999 Republic Referendum end that debate no it did not. Bastiaan ran for Goldstein Pre Selection after Andrew Robb declared he was retiring.

110.22.50.32--110.22.50.32 (talk) 10:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but your obsession with the subject matter is showing. It's almost as if you are trying to prove something negative about Bastiaan. I'm trying to create a great encyclopaedia. You? (BTW: Did you know that a blank Talk page simply leads experienced editors to look at the history of that page. It's a suspicious sign.) HiLo48 (talk) 11:07, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merkel's pant suits can't save you

FYI. USA #1. 199.127.56.84 (talk) 05:26, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that information. I like to learn something new every day. You? HiLo48 (talk) 05:29, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Uneducated, Seething Anti-American hate & bias. Tries to cover up Europe's Racist crimes against humanity & subversion into American politics.

This user falsely claims that the The National Socialist German Workers' Party, the Nazi's of WWII, were not Socialists. This user goes around editing American English to British English under some Euro-supremacist power trip. HiLo calls it "Encyclopedic English" which is a made up lie, there is nothing intellectually superior about it. The International Civil Aviation Organization ordered in 2001 that ALL pilots be forced to learn American English. Basic Global English also uses American spellings. The United Nations uses a US English spellchecker. I feel Wikipedia would most likely want to conform with these International agreed upon standards, rather than continue to be colonized by politically bias loyalists like yourself. In fact Wikipedia prefers that articles about America have American English, something you not only actively go against but gloat about on your User Page. The only countries that do use British English are former colonies, which is quite oppressive. I don't know why you would want to continue to imbue that bigoted history onto Wikipedia, the Internet, or our world. I mean for gods sake the British lost in 1776. That's almost a 250 year old grudge. You are living in the past. British English is like Latin, Let the dinosaurs die. Its time to move on. -- Loyalocolypse (talk) 14:54, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Loyalocolypse:

If you actually read about Nazism, you'd see that it was an attempt to redefine socialism. That sets it apart from socialism. Also, the "were not Socialists" bit is ultimately rooted in a Fallacy of the undistributed middle to imply that Socialists are Nazis. That's not cool.

See WP:ENGVAR. Articles may be written in either American or British English. This is not an airplane and you do not need to be a pilot to edit here.

Go read WP:NPA until you understand why the rest of your post is unacceptable. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:06, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input Ian. I had already tried to explain the Nazism/Socialist thing elsewhere, but with less than perfect success yet. Let's hope some learning occurs soon. And a point of clarification for all. My own version of English is Australian English. OK, it's generally very similar to British English, but there are some minor differences. What was most ironic recently was the need I found to revert some changes of Australian spelling to US spelling in the article Australian English. HiLo48 (talk) 22:15, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I'm always open to learning. What's a tankie? (It was in the post you deleted.) HiLo48 (talk) 22:17, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pejorative term for a communist who stereotypically thinks that Stalin or Mao did nothing wrong, knowing full well what they did. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:26, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thank you. My vocabulary has gone up by one today. Must get back to my seething. HiLo48 (talk) 23:11, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Invite

Hello! I thought you might be interested in joining the Gun Politics Task Force. We work on coordinating, expanding and improving Wikipedia's coverage of topics broadly related to governmental regulation of firearm ownership. If you would be interested in joining feel free to visit the Project Page. Thank You!

75.145.160.153 (talk) 18:25, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting and surprising invitation, one that I shall certainly consider. Puzzled as to why it should come from an IP editor. HiLo48 (talk) 22:13, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have had a look that project page. I was concerned it would be forum dominated by American gun lovers, and wanted to avoid the inevitable dramas and confrontations that would occur in such a place. Fortunately, it seems nothing of the kind. I'm in. HiLo48 (talk) 02:03, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Famousbirthdays.com as a source

Hi HiLo48. I noticed that you recently ~~used~~ restored famousbirthdays.com as a source for information in a biography article, Janine Allis. Please note that there is general consensus that famousbirthdays.com does not meet the reliable sourcing criteria for the inclusion of personal information in such articles. (See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_153#Is_famousbirthdays.com_a_reliable_source_for_personal_information). If you disagree, let's discuss it. Thanks. --Ronz (talk) 15:35, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did not "USE" famousbirthdays.com as a source. I simply reverted an unexplained deletion of that source from the article by an IP editor (no Edit summary). How am I supposed to know it's a crap source? I don't appreciate the condemnatory tone of your message? HiLo48 (talk) 22:01, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No offense meant. I'll rewrite anything you think lends to a "condemnatory tone". I've used the same message and variations of it hundreds of times, and this is the first complaint that I recall. --Ronz (talk) 03:41, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the difference was as I noted. I DIDN'T use famousbirthdays.com as a source. HiLo48 (talk) 03:48, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redacted. --Ronz (talk) 14:48, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm adfraid Ronz in this case I am definitely on HiLo48's side. If I see an unexplained anonymous edit that apparently deletes a source I will almost certainly revert it. The number of times these edits actually delete non-RS sources compared to the number of times they delete legitimate sources is vanishingl small. The more appropriate response from you might have been to re-delete the source with an explanation, rather than come here to question a fellow editor acting in good faith to protect the encyclopaedia. - Nick Thorne ^talk 01:12, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you had bothered to check, you'd see that I did redelete the ref with an explanation, then came here to let HiLo48 know exactly why I did so. --Ronz (talk) 01:43, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

medal or something

your patience at the soccer article is something like beyond the call of duty... JarrahTree 06:18, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It's been a pet, self-appointed task of mine for a very long time. I was involved in the very acrimonious discussions around four years ago which led to the creation of the current policy. I feel some ownership of it. It's clearly but firmly worded, and easy to refer to, so it tends to work well with most editors. At times like this, with the World Cup on, there is always an influx of new editors who want to change the world. Only a handful are persistent enough to cause a problem. HiLo48 (talk) 06:25, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

at least you are in the same language - the soccer in Indonesia material that I periodically jump into I suspect that english is not the first langauge by far... JarrahTree 06:34, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are three languages other than English that I have a smattering in. I would never be game to try to write encyclopaedia entries in any of them, nor even make minor edits. It stuns me how confident others with limited skills are in imposing their excruciating "skills" on us. HiLo48 (talk) 07:40, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And now, with Australia out of the World Cup, this effort by some to right great wrongs will probably fade right away. HiLo48 (talk) 22:31, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely, no, but how/when to denote 'saint'

(I peek in at Recent Changes a couple times a month as a stab at purgatory time on earth, and happened to see your revert.)

Strangely, I am having a hard time finding the Calendar of saints (Anglican Church of Australia) at an official site, as opposed to the WP article, which is unfortunately uncited. But I did find at least one believable mention, the weekly calendar for a church in Melborne [8]. As does the WP page, it mentions September 15th as the feast day for John Oliver Feetham.

So by a valid interpretation, John Feetham could be described as a saint. Whether that should be called out in specific mention is debatable.

Another person is simply noted as

Venerated in Anglican Church of Australia

and

She is commemorated in the Calendar of saints of the Anglican Church of Australia on 2 January.

Another Australian has the mention:

Broughton is commemorated in the Australian Anglican calendar on 20 February.

and in articles is simply noted as 'Bishop', his title.

Anyway, the revert due to 'unlikely' was misplaced, in the sense that the reverted text was not actually erroneous. I'm not going to restore 'St' because I think it is excessive. Shenme (talk) 07:06, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have no trouble with the description "venerated", but "Saint" just seems wrong. HiLo48 (talk) 07:52, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcoming vandal socks

Welcoming such obvious vandal socks as you did at User talk:Ervin111118 is counter-productive. Not having a talk page is one more sign of them being a new, suspicious editor (though of course it is only a minor aspect), and the "welcome" message doesn't really serve a purpose in cases like this. Fram (talk) 11:35, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe in showing good manners to new editors, even to those who make an inappropriate edit. I only saw one such edit from the person concerned. I have seen good treatment turn mischievous editors into useful ones. The editor concerned did not have a label attached to his name saying "Obvious vandal sock!" It may have been obvious to you. It wasn't to me. Sorry. (Maybe next time you could show some good manners too.) HiLo48 (talk) 11:46, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If the first edit of user "Ervin111118" is "Reverted edit by user:Ervin1118", then they are either impersonating Ervin1118 or otherwise socking. No good editor starts with the revert of an edit from an editor with nearly the same name. While such "mischievous" editors may turn into useful ones, it will not happen by simply ignoring what kind of edits they make and at least checking if their edit is productive or vandalistic. Fram (talk) 12:12, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's obvious we have different editing styles. I can deal with that. Can you? Goodbye. HiLo48 (talk) 22:03, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of Australia

I don't know your thoughts, but it seems to me that Flag of Australia is becoming an image farm with far too many "At ... an Australian flag was flown ..... on ...." entries, rather than actual encyclopaedic content about the flag. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:40, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It sure is. We have a somewhat obsessed editor on the job there. I have tried to communicate with him about his approach, to no avail. Just today I thought one option was to wait a bit until he had a break, then tackle the article as a whole, with a big pruning tool. I also suggested to him that he get involved in other topics so he could see more about how Wikipedia works. That didn't work either. I'm open to all ideas. HiLo48 (talk) 09:46, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just a thought. Is anyone watching for copyright for all his images? HiLo48 (talk) 09:47, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should ask for some more eyes at WP:AWNB. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:54, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't go astray. His Edit history will show you that he has also a few other flag articles going. The newest one getting his attention is Australian Red Ensign‎. HiLo48 (talk) 09:57, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to add your comments to Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board#Flag of Australia. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:06, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:AussieLegend - Hey, is it correct etiquette to tell the editor involved about the discussion at WP:AWNB? HiLo48 (talk) 10:56, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can but there's no need. --11:06, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

its been a while do you remember User:Gloriousrevolution and premierstate. Gnan garra 10:45, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That user name rings a bell. "premierstate" doesn't right now. Care to elaborate? HiLo48 (talk) 10:48, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

you had crossed paths with one the many Glorious sock accounts, recent edits started my spidey senses then it started raining WP:BEANS Gnan garra 10:55, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes. And a look at the User's talk page leads me to wonder about the connection between flag enthusiasm and nutterism. (Is that a word?) HiLo48 (talk) 11:03, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

well definitely out there on fringes where there be a substantial variety of isms Gnan garra 11:11, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ABC

Excuse me. Why did you revert my addition to the ABC article?Merphee (talk) 08:27, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) I explained it in my Edit summary. That link says (among other things) "It is good practice to fill in the edit summary field". I try to use one for every edit I make. I strongly recommend you begin to use them more extensively. To save you looking it up, it said "Reverted unsourced, POV addition". Does that help? HiLo48 (talk) 09:03, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I bring your attention to the lead of the article whereby nothing has been sourced which is common for a lead. The inclusion I made was from the main article which already has many sources.Merphee (talk) 08:59, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, let's just make it "POV addition". Is the criticism significant enough to appear in the lead? HiLo48 (talk) 09:04, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That makes no sense at all and I'd appreciate it if you stopped following me tfo other articles too. If you have no explanation for your revert I will be putting back in.Merphee (talk) 09:07, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have you actually read the section in the article that I briefly summarised in the lead? It seems not.Merphee (talk) 09:08, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, my reason was in my Edit summary, something you should use more often. You didn't for the text you're arguing about, and that never helps. Discussion about content of an article belongs in the article's talk page. Use it before re-adding your content, or you will just seem to be edit warring.

Apology

Sorry for wrongfully accusing you of spamming on the 2018 Eastern Canada heat wave article. I hope I didn't cause any offense in my mistake. Have a nice day. Alex of Canada (talk) 00:58, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I appreciate the apology. It's a shame whoever put the link there in the first place didn't actually follow it. HiLo48 (talk) 01:02, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greens as Left to hard left Marxisim

You seem to state the greens are centerist but yet the AEC has them supported by >10% of the population. If we apply your logic then one nation is a center right party ? Can you supply proof of your edits ? Dr pragmatists (talk) 09:54, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are new here. You need to learn that stable content in long standing articles cannot be changed on a whim based on your opinion of what YOU think a source is telling you. Please don't edit war. That will only get you blocked. HiLo48 (talk) 09:58, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Those who want to label The Greens as super nasty lefties do seem to be aggressive people. I wonder where that comes from? HiLo48 (talk) 10:34, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Soccer/football naming conventions

FYI, I posted an explanation at the IP's talk. If they continue I will seek admin intervention. Unfortunately a new discussion will probably result. I don't have a strong view on the topic—my interest is mainly to hose down the disruption. Johnuniq (talk) 10:11, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. There were at least three other IP addresses involved, all close to 203.13.3.90. The editor seemed to have a way of swapping between them quickly. The disruption seems to have stopped for now. Let's see what happens. HiLo48 (talk) 10:17, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Husar

I have opened a case at the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Emma_Husar Please comment there.Merphee (talk) 04:38, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure you're doing yourself any favours here - there just isn't substantive coverage of either of these bits of trivia in any reliable sources, no matter how you define them, and by getting suckered into an argument about the Murdoch media you're doing exactly what he wants and turning the situation into a bit of a clusterfuck. The neutral people who've read it have instantly gone "nope" to his demands, but people aren't going to read through long reams of argument about The Australian to get to the point. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:41, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair comment. I was certainly feeling things were going round in circles. But how many more forums can he try? HiLo48 (talk) 05:54, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

French/African/Trevor Noah

Hi. Today in doing some research on Special Olympics, I ran across this [9] - if you get a chance, you may find the video interesting or thought provoking on the background/race/heritage/nationality issue. It's a nuanced issue and, yes, I do get what you are saying in general (just not where you were saying it). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:12, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a good article. I din't much like your approach to telling me you didn't like where I was saying what I said. I thought it was somewhat aggressive, and getting close to personal. Wikipedia DOES have rules about how we describe people. I believe trying to use racial labels anywhere is dangerous, and almost always has negative results. It would do Wikipedia no harm to move away from doing so. HiLo48 (talk) 23:26, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Barack Obama Edit

The correct term is assault weapons. Assault rifles have to be select fire. Which is basically banned in the USA, except for the few owned before 86. Afootpluto (talk) 22:36, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in my Edit summary, who says so? Remember, this is a global encyclopaedia, not just a reflection of the language some gun enthusiasts use in one country. HiLo48 (talk) 22:49, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Military experts say so. And it is actually an international term. Look up FSTC-CW-07-03-70 SMALL ARMS IDENTIFICATION AND OPERATION GUIDE -- EURASIAN COMMUNIST COUNTRIES, it will give you the US military definition of an assault rifle or you can look here Assault Rifle. It has a lot of sources. Afootpluto (talk) 23:11, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Melbourne Derby (A-League)

Hi, here. If you see someone change Melbourne Heart to Melbourne City in Melbourne Derby (A-League), it is probably Mujhideen101 's sock, so please help me report to WP:SPI if you find he uses sock account to change this, thanks Hhkohh (talk) 23:48, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. It's on my Watchlist. I shall "watch". HiLo48 (talk) 23:53, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hillsong Conference Edit (31/7/2018)

Hi, I refer you to your recent edits to the Hillsong Conference page.

You removed two claims about Qudos bank arena being the largest indoor arena in Australia because you believe them to be not true. I disagree, I've reached out here so we can discuss before I attempt to put it back.

The wikipedia page for the list of indoor arenas in Australia lists the Qudos bank arena (AKA Sydney Superdome, Allphones arena) as the largest by seating capacity at 21,000 (Hillsong Conference use special seating configs and smaller stages which push the capacity higher.)

This article by Worldatlas also lists qudos bank arena as being the largest in Australia. https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-largest-indoor-arenas-in-australia-by-seating-capacity.html

I understand this might be a misunderstanding due to the name frequently changing of the Qudos Bank Arena/Sydney Super Dome.

Unless I'm missing something (in which case, please let me know), is it alright if I revert your edits? L32007 (talk) 14:30, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do get completely confused with commercial names of venues. Getting Wikipedia to use the unchanging, non-commercial names is one of my personal campaigns. So yes, I have no idea what venues you are talking about. But Docklands Stadium in Melbourne, with the roof closed, holds well over 50,000 people. It can be many thousands more if seating is set up on the grass. So, no, despite the Sydney media typically ignoring the rest of the country, nothing in Sydney is the biggest indoor arena. And don't get started around the closing the roof thing. Many arenas of many sizes now have retractable roofs. They all count as "indoors" when the roof is closed. Excluding a venue because its roof opens and closes would leave out many commonly perceived as indoors. HiLo48 (talk) 21:58, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, I learn something new everyday. Thanks! L32007 (talk) 00:01, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

re Merphee

I think if you come across another intractable talk page issue with them, alert the WikiProject Australian Politics to get involved, there's really no point in you getting into disputes with them, especially if it feeds this narrative that you have it in for them and following them around, which is obviously bullshit. We did this with the David Leyonhjelm article and it got sorted out. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:42, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly not seeking dispute with them. But I will correct lies about me. He's good at lying. HiLo48 (talk) 08:44, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you really need to stop posting on their talk page. ~Awilley (talk) 01:39, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did you actually read the conversation he deleted? It started off completely positively, but he killed it. My behaviour is not the problem here in any way at all. That guy has real issues. Don't make excuses for him. How many lies can a user post about me on his Talk page while you ask me to not post there? That's not terribly fair. HiLo48 (talk) 02:38, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "My behaviour is not the problem here in any way at all." Actually it is. Posting on a user's talk page after the user and two admins have asked you to stop is a problem. The sentence, "You really are a nasty piece of work", is a clear personal attack. If you had behaved this way toward a different editor you would probably be blocked right now.

Look, Merphee is clearly being disruptive in a way that everyone can see. I wouldn't be surprised if they are topic banned or indeffed within the week. Look at their edit history: they make 10 pointless edits to random articles to become autoconfirmed and then dive into POV pushing on Australian articles. Probably the number one biggest thing that is preventing them from being blocked or topic banned right now is your own poor behavior. They can point at you and say Look I was provoked and goaded and attacked and I'm just responding in kind. Admins reviewing the thread at AN/I don't see one disruptive editor. They see two editors engaging in endless, pointless, petty bickering. Our typical response to that is to just ignore it. Or warn both parties. Sometimes you'll get an interaction ban, but those take a lot more effort and we're volunteers.

How many lies can a user post about you on their own talk page? As many as they want until they get indeffed. But if you don't stop posting on their talk page you'll end up with a block as well. ~Awilley (talk) 17:08, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did not provoke or goad Merphee in any way at all. And he IS a nasty piece of work. You, like Merphee, might need to look at my User page. You will see that my opinion of the average competence of Admins is not high. If they cannot already see the truth of what has been going on at this very moment, and block the POV pusher, that opinion will not improve. In fact, the unnecessary diversion off onto possible sockpuppetry has already confirmed that opinion. It only delayed what should have been a straightforward individual block.

Don't worry, I'll keep away from his Talk page. He cannot be trusted to be honest about my interactions. Lying is one of his major attributes. HiLo48 (talk) 21:36, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MGuy

I won't edit war but that is true Tony Madafferi about him being a prime suspect in a murder Matthew Guy attended a dinner he too was at.110.22.50.32 (talk) 10:30, 31 July 2018 (UTC)110.22.50.32[reply]

Back to the article's talk page please. HiLo48 (talk) 10:31, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Checking your intent re "corporate right" in Bias discussion

In your comment here, you referred to "the corporate right". I take it you distinguish that from the more general "the right" — right? :) Humanengr (talk) 19:11, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't introduce the word "corporate" to that discussion. When I said "corporate right" I was referring to that element of (big) business that demands freedom from government rules and the like. HiLo48 (talk) 19:20, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I introduced 'corporate' to the discussion. The reason I was asking was that Rjensen switched the focus from your 'corporate right' to 'right' when he responded "the right is vehemently denouncing the national media as leftist and anti-Trump". I thought your point was cogent and the latter lost that focus. Corporate right ≠ right. Humanengr (talk) 19:39, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

True. HiLo48 (talk) 19:43, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Warring on White people

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

I recognize that you stopped at three reverts, but it was still edit warring; an editor as experienced as you are should no better than to continue to revert while invoking BRD in your comments. After all, the procedure is not BREWD, no matter how much you may wish to RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Newimpartial (talk)

What a silly template to use. I have been using the Talk page, and encountering very stubborn behaviour. I have now also discovered that those arguing against me have apparently misread what the article actually says, and are arguing against something different from what I have said. HiLo48 (talk) 02:46, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You were edit warring rather than using BRD, so I posted a template for edit warring. What other template do you think I should have used? The "stubborn behaviour" of others is not an excuse either for your edit war or for ignoring BRD, which specifies that the stable version remains until the issue is resolved on Talk (unless there is COPYVIO or a BLP violation, neither of which is at issue here.

As part of your edit war, you also commented at me that I should use the talk page, when I had recently created a new section on the Talk page to discuss precisely the issue you were edit warring about. Clearly you were exhibiting some kind of hubris I have not previously encountered; I hope you have gotten over it. ;) Newimpartial (talk) 03:24, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. My apologies for not noticing your addition to the talk page. I don't understand, though, why you felt need to create a new section. That just splits a discussion that was already underway. HiLo48 (talk) 03:32, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the previous section, you were arguing about the provenance of statistics concerning the percentage of the Australian population that could be termed white. Since this had nothing to do with the paragraph you were removing content from, I assumed it was a different discussion. Newimpartial (talk) 03:37, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Beaumont, Texas

I would appreciate your input at Talk:Beaumont, Texas#Removal of two senators from notable people section. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:05, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

/* Clive Palmer */

Hi HiLo, I read your comment, but I think Michael Palmer is in fact notable because he ran for office and had political aspirations. Please note that after you commented on my first edit I included details about his elections in Nudgee. Do you still object to the edit despite Michael Palmer's political background?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Flaminggoose (talk • contribs)

I probably mostly picked up on the multiple houses comment, which struck me as being intended to be derogatory. The opinions of others would probably help here. Take it to the Article's talk page. HiLo48 (talk) 10:19, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @Flaminggoose:, as per WP:POLITICIAN "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". Also, please sign your talk page contributions in future by placing 4 tildes (~~~~) at the end of your post. - Nick Thorne ^talk 10:25, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi from a new user

Hi there - thanks for your welcome (and the cookies). I am working through trying to get some page revisions in place. I would also like to contribute pages in the future. Thanks for your guidance. MarionPB (talk) 16:21, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion regarding your conduct

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.Merphee (talk) 00:57, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dealing with vandalism

Looking at a recent series of edits:

1. Here, an IP editor modifies the 2018–19 A-League article to change the word "soccer" to "football". "Soccer" has not been the official name of the sport in Australia since 2005, and is now "football", in line with international usage. The Australian Soccer Association changed to Football Federation Australia in 2005. This is the editor's first contribution to Wikipedia, and of course one must assume good faith.

2. A short time later, you revert his edit.[10] You (incorrectly) claim that the name of the sport in Australia is "soccer".

3. A few seconds later, you send a welcome message to the IP talk page.[11] I quote:

"Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia!

"Someone using this IP address, 1.41.90.220, has made edits to 2018–19 A-League that do not conform to our policies and therefore have been reverted. For more information on this, see Wikipedia's policies on vandalism and limits on acceptable additions."

Now, how do you think a new Wikipedia editor will feel when he makes a good faith edit to Wikipedia, correcting what looks to him to be a clear error, and to be told immediately thereafter that he is vandalising Wikipedia and not conforming to our policies? We advertise Wikipedia (at the top of the home page) as "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit".

Checking with policy, on the WP:Vandalism page, we see this advice:

"Avoid the word "vandal". In particular, this word should not be used to refer to any contributor in good standing nor to any edits that might have been made in good faith. This is because if the edits were made in good faith, they are not vandalism. Assume good faith yourself; instead of calling the person who made the edits a "vandal", discuss your concerns with him or her. Comment on the content and substance of the edits, instead of making personal attacks."[12]

Looking back through your contributions, I note that this activity is repeated every few days. Someone makes a correction, you (sometimes just a few moments later) tell them that they are a vandal. As you have been doing this for several years, may I ask if, now that you are aware that this sort of thing is problematic, whether you intend to continue doing so? --Pete (talk) 22:33, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pete, you know full well I am simply using a standard template there. There isn't much choice among the templates that are automatically made available for responding to unregistered editors who make an inappropriate edit. But I take your point. I am happy to develop some more friendly words that I will use when I see editors who need to learn about our policy on naming football codes. Thanks for pointing out the problem. HiLo48 (talk) 23:24, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you!

Thanks for your consistent efforts in fending off vandalism on Australian far-right pages. Have a beer mate! Bacondrum (talk) 05:55, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's cool. And so is the beer. I note that the offender on True Blue Crew has a temporary block. It will be interesting to see if it has a long term effect. HiLo48 (talk) 06:14, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's so strange how these folks can't handle the truth about their own beliefs. I doubt that the block will have any effect, they probably think it's a conspiracy.Bacondrum (talk) 07:09, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. HiLo48 (talk) 07:11, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RfC at Talk:Ayn Rand

Hi, I moved your comment into the survey section, as it seems to fit better there. Hope that's ok. Thanks, LK (talk) 06:46, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. Wasn't sure where to put it myself. HiLo48 (talk) 06:55, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in Complementary and Alternative Medicine. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33

Alexbrn (talk) 08:27, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTFORUM

About this,

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines, not for general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics, or statements based on your thoughts or feelings. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 12:40, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see this from you as a perfect example of the bias that drives articles such as that one. My comment IS about the article. It's about some rubbish content, from a very biased person. It should not be in our article. HiLo48 (talk) 22:29, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and hatting that thread hides the fact that several editors disagree with the claimed consensus on that article's content. Now, why would anyone want to do that? HiLo48 (talk) 23:48, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in Eastern Europe. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33

So when is an administrator going to ban the person who began the thread immediately above? HiLo48 (talk) 04:29, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that everything to do with this discussion has now been closed, and packaged with lies and threats about reopening any of it. That is not the way to build a great encyclopaedia, and proves to me that there are owners of the article in question who are scared of proper discussion. It's so sad. It's precisely the kind of behaviour on Wikipedia that led me to take a four year sabbatical until recently. This time I'm sticking around. Sorry to those who don't like to be challenged. HiLo48 (talk) 04:34, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mp's supporting Guy

Started discussion on talk page. --110.22.50.32 (talk) 08:33, 20 August 2018 (UTC)110.22.50.32--~~[reply]

Australian Sport Participation

There is now a dispute resolution request on sport participation in Australia.

Can you please put in your response on the dispute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siento (talk • contribs) 21:28, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion on the dispute resolution page is ongoing. Could you please respond there. Siento (talk) 11:41, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry!

Hey HiLo48, I have to apologise. I was monitoring vandalism through Lupin's anti-vandal tool and found that I accidentally reverted a comment belonging to you on a talk page, thinking that it was a vandal edit to an article. I'm sorry for this horrible mistake. Contraption5000 (talk) 22:16, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify further, Lupin's anti-vandal tool filters out recent Wikipedia edits with words considered not appropriate for encyclopedic use. I was unaware that it also included talk pages, rather than just mainspace articles. As for the explanation, it seems there was no pop-up for it. I think it's because my revert was not at a mainspace article. Again, sorry for this mistake. Contraption5000 (talk) 22:29, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's all good. Thanks for the message. HiLo48 (talk) 06:49, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Norfolk Island Freight Services

Hi mate, fair enough, but I think the section could be merged with the transport section. I've started a discussion at [13]. Jaxcab (talk) 07:28, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 2018

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates, you may be blocked from editing. Openlydialectic (talk) 23:50, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive? Really. I guess it is disruptive when one challenges the status quo. Do open your mind a little. HiLo48 (talk) 23:55, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Read these articles: Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, Russian military intervention in Ukraine (2014–present), Russo-Georgian War, Russian apartment bombings, etc. Maybe it's you who should "open his mind a little" Openlydialectic (talk) 00:38, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko, Second Chechen War, Anna Politkovskaya, List of journalists killed in Russia, Silovik, Destruction of Syria's chemical weapons, which was followed by Khan Shaykhun chemical attack, Douma chemical attack and soon to be the third one. Openlydialectic (talk) 00:44, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Openlydialectic, I'm about to delete that obvious BLP violation of yours. Seriously? Drmies (talk) 00:47, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, I am sorry, but isn't claiming that a thoroughly conducted investigation is a >"Pure anti-Russian propaganda, from one of the usual suspects, designed to feed the Russia haters in the west. For an example, see "F*ck Putin" above. These are allegations, not even charges. Not proof of anything. All part of the international propaganda war. And a lot of people have been sucked right in. We must not play this game." is exactly an example of "deliberately introducing incorrect information" I warned this user of? Openlydialectic (talk) 00:55, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I don't know what you are trying to argue. You made a pretty bad personal attack (and you were warned for it), and you committed a BLP violation. Whatever the merits or demerits of HiLo's comment, it's hardly introducing "incorrect information". So you disagree. Fine. I probably do too. But your warning is unwarranted, and I only pinged you because of the BLP violation--I don't know why you think it's OK to go and insult a living person on Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 00:58, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I misunderstood your comment then since I was confused why you posted about the BLP violation here instead of my talk page and concluded that you meant this warning was the BLP violation. My apologies. Openlydialectic (talk) 01:04, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When I was growing up we were told we should hate and fear the evil Russians because they were nasty communists. Now they are not, but we must apparently still hate and fear them. I realised some time ago that manipulative politicians, particularly those in more extreme positions, tend to use the bogey man factor to instil obedience in the unthinking masses. Russia seems to have filled that role well for right wing western leaders in the west. I hold no brief for Putin, but I refuse to blame him for everything that goes wrong in my country. Solutions to problems are never found by blaming nasty foreigners. HiLo48 (talk) 06:13, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't feed the troll

Gidday there HiLo48. Methinks it is time to stop feeding the troll. - Nick Thorne ^talk 13:23, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. HiLo48 (talk) 22:50, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kīlauea

Hey, how ya doin’? About your revert, the sentence you cite does indeed say Kīlauea is the most active volcano in Hawaii, but I changed the lede to note that it is currently inactive, due to the fact that all three recent vents have ceased lava eruption since early August. I thought it best to discuss it with you here. The national park reopened in part on September 22, and that was impossible before August due to the explosive collapses and earthquakes at the summit, now no longer occurring. Perhaps the phrase “currently dormant” would be better? Cheers! Jusdafax (talk) 05:10, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I'm not sure how the scientists see these things. Are there good, current sources where words like "dormant" and "(in)active" are used? HiLo48 (talk) 05:13, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure a dormant volcano is one that hasn't erupted recently, but may do at any time. A volcano that as erupted recently is considered to be active. I'll see if I can dig up a reference. - Nick Thorne ^talk 05:36, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I stalked my way here from the Kilauea page history. I just want to note that a volcano can still be classified as "active" even if it currently isn't erupting. See, for example, the articles on Mauna Loa and Mount St. Helens. The Smithsonian Institution defines an active volcano as a volcano that has erupted in the last 10,000 years[14], which Kilauea easily meets. I would advocate leaving the phrase describing Kilauea as an active volcano, but noting in the ~~less~~ lead that the volcano isn't currently erupting (or that the last eruption paused in August 2018, or whatever the exact date was). Aoi (青い) (talk) 05:40, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually at the volcano the day before the earthquake back in May. (Hence my enthusiastic interest.) It hadn't erupted at that point, but the lave was clearly on the move. It had disappeared from the lava lake, and was expected to pop up somewhere downstream in a couple of days, which is precisely what it did. Pretty sure the geologists regarded it as active the day I was there, even though it wasn't pouring lava all over the place on that particular day. HiLo48 (talk) 05:45, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think there might be a bot on confusion here between the terms active and erupting. An active volcano from what I have been able to find out is one that has erupted in the last 10,000 years, That certainly includes Kilauea. Dormant volcanoes are those that have not erupted in the last 10,000 years. See here and here. - Nick Thorne ^talk 08:21, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Daniel Andrews Election Rorts edit

Hi, obviously you want to delete any reference to this affair due to your political bias, I'm stating facts, with proper references, edit that section as you see appropriate but why would you delete it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ralph11 (talk • contribs) 06:49, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To the article's talk page PLEASE!!!!! HiLo48 (talk) 06:51, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Place names

Hi, I didn’t mean to imply or promote a US-centric point of view by identifying Allegash, Maine as the location of the Allegash abductions rather than only “United States”. Sorry if you took it the wrong way. Cheers, - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:26, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's cool. As someone who had never heard of the alleged incident or the place before yesterday, I believe it's essential to mention the country somewhere in the article. HiLo48 (talk) 22:38, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to your ITN question

In the now closed Kavanaugh ITN nom you asked me the following:

What's rare and noteworthy about it? These fights occur every time a president tries to stack the court in his favour. And that always seems to be what happens. Is this different because it was about sex? (Nobody has actually said that.) HiLo48 (talk) 05:04, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

My answer would be roughly as follows: I don't really want to get into a pointless discussion about this, as it's part of a closed nom. But you asked a perfectly reasonable question, so I think you may well be entitled to an answer, as follows:

At least in my view, it's different because it's about a highly-emotive gender relations issue (which you may call 'about sex' if you prefer, but I think that's ultimately rather misleading, a bit like describing Feminism and/or Masculism as 'about sex'). At least in my view, it's rare in the sense that the last truly rather similar (but far from identical) event was 27 years ago, the 1991 Clarence Thomas - Anita Hill row, which is widely (tho necessarily unprovably) seen as having changed attitudes towards sexual harassment in much of the world (even tho it would obviously be WP:CRYSTAL to predict what effects if any the present episode will have). And I personally would regard events with the seemingly rather obvious potential to significantly alter gender relations as 'noteworthy', and I think many others would too (even tho it's too early to know whether that potential will turn into reality or not). That's seemingly also a large part of the reason why it got so much more worldwide coverage than Trump's previous nom (Gorsuch, I think, a name which I had completely forgotten until it got mentioned in the Kavanaugh row, quite unlike the names of Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill, and quite unlike what I expect to happen to my memory of the names of Brett Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford). No doubt there are also other reasons for the coverage, as there presumably often are. And of course it may well be that it doesn't seem different or rare or noteworthy to you, in which case you're obviously as entitled to your opinion as I am to mine, and we will probably be well-advised to simply agree to differ (about what is after all very much a matter of subjective opinion, as things like similarity and noteworthiness often are).

Kind Regards. Tlhslobus (talk) 10:57, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that detailed comment. It's helpful. You know, I may well feel close to the same way you do about gender relations issues, but that aspect didn't come out at all in the discussion at ITN. And I truly wonder why? As I and many others pointed out, the nomination was ostensibly about something that would never have even been nominated at all had it been about any other country - a higher court appointment. With US editors dominating Wikipedia (along with a few Brits), the rest of us are always on the alert for US-centrism. The initial posting happened after less than three hours discussion. That was very wrong, and just got doubtful people angrier, and stronger in their efforts to kill it. (Wikipedia needs to be able to sack Admins who make such "errors", but it's not going to happen.) Had the nomination emphasised the gender relations issues right from the start (rather than not mentioning them at all), and been allowed to run a normal course without that early interruption, it may well have been posted, but as it was, it looked like just another example of Trump doing his worst (and ITN doing ITS worst!), and we can't possibly post all of those. HiLo48 (talk) 21:29, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. You ask why the gender relations aspect got no mention. There are several answers to that.

1) First, if you read my justification for my Support !vote, you'll see that I do mention Anita Hill's apparent effect on attitudes to sexual harassment - but I had to be cautious in my expression so that WP:CRYSTAL would work for me instead of against me, and anybody else arguing the same would have faced the same problem.
2) But I was either alone or one of very few, largely hidden amid a vast number of other editors who didn't raise the issue, and only partly due to the above-mentioned WP:CRYSTAL problem, as most editors were probably largely or entirely unaware of the gender relations aspect for systemic reasons:
2b) Most American editors probably think the Scotus balance and the mid-term elections are far more important than any gender relations aspect.
2c) Young editors mostly have no idea who Anita Hill is.
2d) Older editors have mostly either forgotten her, or never appreciated her significance in the first place.
2e) Our 90% male editors are especially unlikely to be aware of her, and are mostly unlikely to think the gender relations aspect is important, especially as the man 'won', at least in the short run (as, incidentally, also happened in 1991).
3) Quite likely there are also other reasons of which I'm unaware.

Regards, Tlhslobus (talk) 02:17, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oops

Sorry, must have been a misclick! --Canley (talk) 10:27, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. HiLo48 (talk) 05:26, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Easy done - quite common random groups are added to various party lists without being registered, just that this one was. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:42, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wentworth by-election, 2018

Assistance at Wentworth by-election, 2018 would be appreciated. Timeshift (talk) 11:02, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I've been doing my best for the past few days, but there are two very aggressive editors there making life very difficult. Not sure what strategy is most appropriate. I truly don't understand their goals. I went close to 3RR a couple of times, and there's two of them. Logic on the Talk page doesn't work.

To be honest, I am finding the overall atmosphere there very unpleasant, and am no longer attracted to fighting the good fight. HiLo48 (talk) 21:52, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great minds...? :) Timeshift (talk) 06:23, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. HiLo48 (talk) 06:30, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Standard operating procedure

Howdy. I think it's a matter of if/when an editor peeves off enough editors, with his/her behavior. At that point, somebody will report (with required diffs) that editor's behavior history to WP:ANI or request a case to Arbitration. GoodDay (talk) 15:05, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's been tried. Admins see him as such a "nice" editor. They don't have the time or energy to fully research his long term history on several topics. Nor do I, I guess. HiLo48 (talk) 22:14, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At WP:ANI, it's the community that decides these issues. Not administrators. GoodDay (talk) 00:10, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Take comfort in that he doesn't always get his way. -- GoodDay (talk) 05:36, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh true. And he never wins his perennial fights on the "soccer" vs "football" in Australia front. Still causes a lot of wasted electrons to be flying around. HiLo48 (talk) 05:47, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request for block

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

Accidental rollback

Hi, my apologies for that accidental rollback, to make matters worse the train that I was on then went underground, meaning that I couldn't revert my own edit - I've only just reached somewhere that I can respond. Again, sorry. Mikenorton (talk) 10:10, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry. All is fine. I have made such mistakes myself. HiLo48 (talk) 10:14, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war at G.I. Generation

Hi, I didn't count the edits but I think you might be going over the 3 revert edit rule on the G.I. Generation page. Can you just leave it and respond on the talk page?

How about you using the fucking Talk page BEFORE you make such changes? NOBODY has responded to the thread I began there, except you just now. Editing while ignoring a Talk page discussion is vandalism. HiLo48 (talk) 00:32, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, HiLo48. You have new messages at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Message added 20:52, 17 November 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I know you haven't been active, but please respond ASAP. It has been suggested that you're being piled-on by users with an axe to grind, and if that's the case, we need to know the specifics. Swarm talk 20:52, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HoLo48, I'd like to add my encouragement for you to defend youself. I know it's unpleasant but I feel the info posted so far at AN/I has been very one sided. - Nick Thorne ^talk 22:17, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Swarm: & @Nick Thorne:. I appreciate the heads-up. My views on Wikipedia's Administration have been on my User page for a long time. It seems things are getting worse, not better. I really can't be bothered even looking at AN/I. It will only make me angry and depressed. I have other important things keeping me very busy these days, and can't be bothered dealing with the unfettered hatred and lies from the POV pushers aiming to silence those who want to make Wikipedia a great encyclopaedia, rather than their personal mouthpiece. Say hello to the bullies for me. HiLo48 (talk) 22:36, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you don't have to comment there, but can you please at least give me an indication as to how many and who is supporting your block that you have previously interacted with? We take this sort of thing seriously, and if some of the block supporters have a history with you, that will change the way the discussion is viewed by uninvolved admins and uninvolved users in general. We need the information from you, though. If it's true, you can't just sit back and let them win by refusing to defend yourself. Swarm talk 07:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I could look at it, but I shouldn't have to. Your comment simply reinforces my view that the Admin system at Wikipedia is broken. If Administrators can't see the problem for themselves, THEY are the problem. (Not just part of it.) And don't tell me Admins are busy, etc. Nobody is forced to be one, and I have never seen an Administrator do anything significant about other bad administrators, and there are plenty. Sorry, but you are doing to me exactly what I felt getting involved in that discussion would do, making me angry and depressed. Not your fault directly, but you ARE part of the system that allows this crap to happen.

I'll set you a challenge. Many lies were told about me at ANI before I gave up at that discussion. If you want to convince me it is worth me continuing to participate there, immediately block everyone that has told a lie about me there. HiLo48 (talk) 10:38, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK HiLo48, here is a list of the editors from AN/I that have supported sanctions against you or made critical/disparaging comments in the current thread.

Carl Tristan Orense (iVote support only)

Global-Cityzen

Impru20

Softlavender

Slatersteven

WaltCip

JJB

Lepricavark

Merphee

Snow

So to answer Swarm's question, which of these have you had prior negativ interactions with? - Nick Thorne ^talk 12:43, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nick, I have been editing here for many years. I have made over 50,000 edits, probably on thousands of topic. Unlike some others, I tend to respond to the content of comments, rather than to who made them. In fact, I have made this a strong policy because of what I learnt here and elsewhere about discussing things on the Internet. I simply cannot remember who I have debated issues with a lot of the time. (Isn't that how things are supposed to work here?) However, of that list, I can remember some recent disagreement on logic and facts with Impru20 and with Merphee. Softlavender said some particularly irrational things recently. The names Waltclip and Snow ring a bell. No idea why. And that's about it. Note this does not mean I have not had interactions with the others. I simply cannot recall. And I still contend that it is the job of Administrators to find the answer to that question, not me. It's not me making accusations here. HiLo48 (talk) 21:52, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a figurative 'target' on my head years ago. Trust me, you're doing the correct thing by laying low, for the moment. GoodDay (talk) 15:53, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've not said anything beyond what is easily visible in your edits and talk page. —JJ B^e ^rs 18:21, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth does that mean? Have you read all 50,000 of my edits? And who are you anyway? HiLo48 (talk) 21:52, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Going by what I've read, rightly or wrongly, many of the editors at your ANI report have expressed frustration with what they see as a bad temper approach on your part, on article talk pages. You may have to conform to their demands on this matter, less it ends up at Arbcom. You don't want to go before Arbcom. GoodDay (talk) 18:33, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen no demands. I won't look at the ANI thread again, for reasons already explained. Reading lies and illogical comments about oneself is not good for one's personal health. If anyone wants to discuss something with me personally, they can come to this Talk page. HiLo48 (talk) 21:52, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HiLo48, after my post above with the list, I decided to take the time to thoroughly re-read the entire thread and follow all of the links and diffs. I discovered that the claims being made were simply not backed up by actual evidence (this will be no surprose to you) and so I wrote an extensive post pointing out the cases of diffs not saying what they were purported to say, were completely irrelevent and so on. It seems that a few other eyes have now been prompted to look at the issue and the tide of opinion has turned. I have done this because it seemed to me that I recognised some of the names from previous contretemps involving yourself and was unsure that the complaints were entirely bona fides. It gives me no pleasure to find out that I was right. I think you're best advised to stay out of it at AN/I and I suspect that now the cat is out of the bag the whole thing will die a death. - Nick Thorne ^talk 04:29, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your efforts Nick. As I have said many times, I find ANI one of the worst aspects of Wikipedia. It gives free rein to hateful and POV pushing editors, and to incompetent and unethical Admins. I have no intention of playing there again. The one thing that could change my mind just a little about ANI would be if some of the folk I have just mentioned could cop a boomerang. There simply has to be some negative consequences for the hurling of all that male cow manure. If there isn't, the problem will never go away. Again, thanks. HiLo48 (talk) 05:31, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, HiLo48. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion about your talk page.

I suggest that you use some sort of talk page archiving, your talk page is huge. You can look at Help:Archiving a talk page, if you need help on how to archive a talk page. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 22:16, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An Archive Bot, would do the trick. GoodDay (talk) 01:14, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:The Greatest Generation which affects an article which you have previously participated in a discussion about. Your input would be appreciated. Thank you! Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:17, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back

Hey man, wasn't too sure if you'd really called it quits. You're the editor we need around with over 50,000 contributions and 13 years on the project. Keep up the good work. Hughesdarren (talk) 12:56, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Still not sure about this place though. As I returned I saw that a drama I was involved in before my recent sabbatical was still underway, with Wikipedia apparently having no way of silencing blatant efforts at censorship by a couple of wilfully ignorant POV pushers. I refer to the discussions at Talk:The Australian. This all began many months ago when I dared to suggest that, across the spectrum of newspapers in this country, The Australian has a slant to the right of centre. This suggestion actually shocked one editor who is clearly on the right of politics himself. There is clear consensus in the discussions, but the POV pushers won't give up. Very time wasting. There are many more examples across Wikipedia. I hardly feel game to comment myself now. HiLo48 (talk) 21:40, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G'day mate, glad to see you back here. You may recall one of the soccer tragics warning of the dire consequences of IPs changing soccer to football? Yeah, well it never happened. We still get the odd such edit, but it is far from the tsunami we were warned ebout. Whoda thunkit? - Nick Thorne ^talk 23:56, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed about the Australian but just remember you are the more valuable editor. Pig-ignorant POV single issue idiots always eventually slither back under there stones never to be seen again, some just take more time than others. Anyway onward and upward. Hughesdarren (talk) 10:38, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, that's not true. One of the two problematic editors I mentioned above has been doing it for probably a decade now. The other is much newer, but is obviously now being encouraged by the aforementioned person. And I must point out that the discussion I mentioned above is just one current example. I have seen many others. Nick Thorne (above) has touched on one such area, the naming of various ball sports in Australia. That one's been a lot of fun, but can be tiring. HiLo48 (talk) 22:30, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! A very cool person and refreshingly blunt editor who I often both disagree with and defend.North8000 (talk) 15:17, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I wish more people with whom I disagree had your approach to mature discussion. HiLo48 (talk) 22:35, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad to see you back as well HL. I also know how aggravating things can get here. You need to do what is best for you. I just want you to know that the 'pedia is better off when you are editing. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 22:59, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. "You need to do what is best for you." I wish I could do what is best for Wikipedia, but its policies won't allow it. They favour bigoted POV pushers. HiLo48 (talk) 00:14, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Might be needing another break here due to contentious editing. Anyone interested can have a look at the discussions on Talk:The Australian. A couple of editors with obvious politically right wing inclinations are fighting to the death to prevent any mention of that newspaper's obvious right wing leanings in the article. For those unfamiliar with the journal, it might help to know that it's a Rupert Murdoch/News Ltd publication. Can any sane person imagine Rupert publishing something that isn't right wing?

What disgusts me is the control and time wasting these two people are exercising over a significant Wikipedia article. If Wikipedia cannot stop their troublesome behaviour, I'm wondering, what's the point of trying? HiLo48 (talk) 07:21, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down, please. I've said it many times now, and I'll say it again. I agree with you - at least in broad terms - on your assessment of the political stance of The Australian. What we need are sources to base such a statement in wikivoice. If you cannot find a good source, then with all respect, I suggest that the facts are not quite so plain as you make out. As Wikipedia editors we cannot present our own opinions as fact; that is short-changing our readers who may wish to check our claims. --Pete (talk) 11:51, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pete, would Roy Morgan be good enough for you? See this press Release. - Nick Thorne ^talk 22:36, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please take the content discussion off my Talk page. And Pete, Merphee seems to worship you. Maybe you could lead him in the direction of better behaviour. Did you actually see what he did to my Talk page, and won't apologise for? HiLo48 (talk) 22:51, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. - Nick Thorne ^talk 23:27, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Archive Bot

Howdy, HiLo. Recommend ya get yourself an archive bot for your talkpage :) GoodDay (talk) 03:11, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion. I might clean this up a bit, but I don't actually want to hide a lot of this stuff. HiLo48 (talk) 03:17, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My advice

I think we just need to start noting their outbursts and eventually reporting. It's much more obvious than their disruptions on articles and talk pages. I think it would be best if you stopped engaging with the insults and so on, and only respond to them as if you were to pretend they made a civil comment. Although I do approve calling out their behaviour like I did a few moments ago, it's not a good time to make a judgement on them, we can let their own words do that. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:05, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice to report such stuff, but I am reluctant to get involved. I have been taken to AN/I myself a few times by those trying to silence me. Always unsuccessful, but each time now it's "Look how often he's been reported before" and we get a massive pile-on of haters. Not logical, but the POV pushers and Wiki-lawyers will try anything to get their way. I won't stop you doing it though. HiLo48 (talk) 06:42, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vice grip(s)

Hello. I confess to being an administrator; I hope you don't mind (but your user page makes me slightly nervous). However, being an administrator is utterly irrelevant to the very bizarre little fracas about the orthography of one name (a name I'd never heard of until today) of what I think of as a mole wrench. Look, if you're called names or your mental state is questioned or whatever, don't take it seriously. It hasn't recently happened to me; but when it does happen I copy it to my user page. I hope that you derive as much amusement from this collection as I do. -- Hoary (talk) 11:19, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha. You have done very well there. Don't worry. I have resigned myself to a lot of the inherent flaws of Wikipedia, and am quite good at removing myself from ugly scenes when necessary. I shall watch happenings at Locking pliers, and only add something if I feel it's really necessary. Good luck, and thanks for the message. HiLo48 (talk) 11:42, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see you back

Hey, nice work on pulling me back from the brink of a speedy delete on Skyrora, good to see you back and hope all is well. Hughesdarren (talk) 05:04, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Skyrora looks like a damn good topic for an article. I shall see if I can do more. HiLo48 (talk) 05:14, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just added a bit more and curated the page through, and yes it is a damn good topic. Cheers. Hughesdarren (talk) 05:26, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted your edit

This edit of yours has been reverted. Adding your own commentary, point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles as in this example violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. JGHowes ^talk 01:37, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I was trying to fix obvious vandalism. There had been two edits of a similar kind. I may have stuffed up, but I wasn't adding my own commentary. I suggest you pay more attention to that actual sequence of events there. HiLo48 (talk) 01:54, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for fixing the article on swimming pool

Thank you for fixing the article Swimming pool after my comments on the talk page of this article. It looks better now. Vorbee (talk) 07:44, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. HiLo48 (talk) 08:22, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome/Lance Armstrong

Thanks for the welcome! I made a suggestion for a better wording, as you suggested, can you check it out?--2A03:1B20:3:F011:0:0:0:11D (talk) 21:13, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the invitation.

I agree with everything what you wrote on your page. We have the same views. You've made me feel better, thanks :-) 85.193.240.212 (talk) 02:08, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the welcome

HiLo48,

Thank you for being the one that gave me recognition.

I’ve been on here for a few years editing pages that have interest me or relate to me. However, my page is protected so I can’t make the page to an account. 76.223.244.197 (talk) 17:49, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your response was modified/typo correct

I noticed your response was modified here [15], with a typo coming I assume from holding down the shift key too long corrected changing 'THese' to 'These' when looking into the contribs of someone due to concerns. I have reversed most of their other 'corrections', but have left this one of your comment be because I'm not sure it benefits anyone to restore it and you are an active contrib so can decide for yourself what you prefer. Just letting you know in case you do wish to restore your original version. Nil Einne (talk) 15:31, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the typo fix. Yep. That's one of my standard typing errors. But I still don't like the idea of my previous comment being hatted. It highlights that the comment immediately following is simply not true in some cases. It was validly linked to another relevant article and, I believe, quite informative. Won't edit war over it, but it's a bit disappointing. HiLo48 (talk) 22:05, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for Graham Farmer

On 14 August 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Graham Farmer, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.

— Amakuru (talk) 18:15, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wondering what you think about the edits of an IP you welcomed

This one.[16] I think they are on a mission and it's not improving the encyclopedia. Doug Weller talk 18:44, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they probably think they're improving the encyclopaedia. It's seems to be a weird version of political correctness, with an emphasis on highlighting that the United States hasn't always existed, and trying to write it out of existence. It's not outright vandalism, as I see it, just very strange. Obviously worth watching. HiLo48 (talk) 09:00, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I spot checked a dozen or so of their edits. Quite brilliant, actually. Looks like they're changing things from politically defined regions (countries) to geographic regions (continent, subcontinent, directional designations, etc.). Also some historical tweaks, like an explorer that "discovered" a river becomes "came upon". Because, yes, the river was already there. And political boundaries change, but geography doesn't change as often. And animal and plant species don't care about political boundaries. It's not just North America they're editing about. Most of their earliest edits were Australian-based. Cohere (talk) 14:52, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there could be some point to what they're trying to achieve, but I found it a bit clumsy when they wanted to change the south west of the United States to south west North America. Not only does that ignore the existence of Mexico and places further south, it's just plain ugly English. HiLo48 (talk) 03:11, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, that one sounds stupid, alright. I didn't notice any awkward ones like that when I was spot checking several. Perhaps the quirk there is that some people think of North America as being Canada-plus-USA, omitting Mexico, which is then considered part of "Central America". Of course, when one thinks of "North America the continent", that should include all of (what is otherwise called) Central America. C.A. is not a continent. Continents: there is north and there is south. That is all. ᗒᗕ Cohere (talk) 06:11, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Music of the United States

The reason for that edit was because saying that it "is" now the United States is rather Eurocentric, implying that US occupation is inherent, when the indigenous peoples have had the land stolen from them. The rewrite was to make it NPOV. 50.68.172.46 (talk) 19:29, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

September 2019

Hello, I'm Vanilla Wizard. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates that didn't seem very civil. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please do not again "deliberately" refer to the administrators as "owners" who need to "get out of their little insular bubbles" to "actually look at items from cultures they know nothing about." Belligerent behaviour makes it far harder to have reasoned discussion. Thank you. Vanilla Wizard 💙 02:33, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, abide by WP:CIVIL. I'm of half a mind to raise your conduct at WP:AN/I, and I see it's been raised there before. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:30, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And thrown out pretty much every time, because it was eventually demonstrated that I was responding to unacceptable or incompetent behaviour by others. In this case I was responding to an appalling display of Wikipedia's bias against things that aren't mainstream (to the bulk of Admins). No equivalent American item would have taken nearly a day to be posted after it was ready. Does that not bother you in the slightest. Again, I remind you that my actions DID lead to the item rightfully being posted at ITN, albeit late. What would have happened had I not made a fuss? The bias would have had an even bigger impact, wouldn't it. It probably wouldn't have been posted even yet. What would you have done had you been in my position. Would it have worked? Me being a little bit uncivil made Wikipedia a better encyclopaedia. I'm proud of that. HiLo48 (talk) 22:05, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Vanilla Wizard Way to go - shoot the messenger. HiLo may not be the most subtle of editors, but you completely ignored the substance of what he is saying. No wonder he gets a bit hot under the collar. - Nick Thorne ^talk 03:50, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was notified, so I might as well offer one final comment here. Shooting the messenger? Ignoring the substance of what he's saying? He already got what he wanted, and the "substance" of what he is saying amounted to nothing more than unwarranted personal attacks and incoherent ranting about how this impressively fast posting wasn't fast enough, and that everyone except them should be ashamed of how biased they are. When all was said and done, they explained that they took pride in the extent to which they violated WP:CIVIL. What could have been just any other normal RD posting became a hot mess with multiple closed discussions, and I'm the one "shooting" people for using what was quite literally the friendliest, lowest-level, most tame reminder template in my toolkit? When asked to bear in mind WP:SHOUT, they reacted by shouting even more. When asked to be reminded of the civility guidelines, they created a new thread called "a waste of electrons" on my user talk page, and they even went as far as to ignore the closure of said thread. If your analysis of the situation is HiLo shouldn't have done anything differently, and that I'm the one going around "shooting" people, then I seriously question your judgment. I will not be adding any further comments here, and something like this better not happen again. Best wishes to all of you. Vanilla Wizard 💙 00:53, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some years ago in the area where I live, there was an incident where a much loved sporting figure was killed in a one punch killing incident by a bouncer at a nightclub. In all the public agonising after the event, amid discussions on how bouncers were chosen for their role and got their jobs, it was suggested by many that the worst people to have as bouncers were the people who really wanted to do it. I wonder at times if the same should apply at Wikipedia when we decide who should be Admins. Being so much more concerned about having every editor conform with the behavioural norms of one culture, rather than actual content, is not the way to create a great global encyclopaedia. If any readers find my spelling here, and the expressions I have used in the Wikilinks, somewhat unusual, I have chosen those words with the intention of highlighting just one area of diversity here, across the diverse forms of the English language we use. Naturally there are others. One is what is regarded as civil conversation. Many attempts have been made at Wikipedia to precisely define civility. Some editors come to those discussions with absolute certainty as to what it is, and find from the comments of others that the world is much more diverse than they think. At Wikipedia talk:Civility, a clear, unarguable definition of civility has never really been created. What really matters is our hopefully agreed upon goal of creating a better encyclopaedia. HiLo48 (talk) 03:03, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks and incivility by you Hilo48 will not be tolerated

Please stop the personal attacks. They are not civil. Recently I was blocked for 24 hours and have learnt to be more civil. However it seems you have not. I will report this to the same admin to consider. I notice you do this to many other editors who also do not deserve your abuse and personal attacks. Merphee (talk) 02:18, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There was no personal attack there. HiLo48 (talk) 03:21, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there was! I have now taken the time to explain my edits on the ABC. Please take part in the conversation instead of going around attacking others and casting your personal opinions about other editors motives. Please try and adhere at all times to Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Assume good faith when dealing with other editors who may disagree with your point of view or pick you up on lack of civility you seem to often show. I have learnt and try at all times to adhere to our policies and show respect to other editors and the project more generally. Thank you. Merphee (talk) 03:46, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for finally using the talk page. It's where you should have gone in the first place, but you really do need to take a look in a mirror one day to see and admit your political leanings. That comment rawly displays your own opinion of the ABC as a bunch of pinko lefty gay whale huggers. I am happy to acknowledge what my political position is, but I try not to impose it on Wikipedia. As for the ABC, it's the only major media outlet we have that doesn't have to pander to the requirements of advertisers, almost all the same organisations that support the Liberal Party. That makes the rest of the media right wing, and the ABC independent and centrist. I'm working on getting that perspective accepted in other places. I know there's no hope with the Murdoch press and people like you, but it's completely logical. The idea of left and right is purely arbitrary, and changes a lot over time. There is no absolute position on this stuff. Please stop editing as if there is. HiLo48 (talk) 03:55, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh for f... sake! I watch the ABC all the time. Please don't accuse me of bias. I just include what the vast majority of reliable sources say. That's what we are supposed to do here at Wikipedia HiLo48. I could easily make comment about YOUR extremely obvious political leanings, but as usual, I will keep them to myself. My problem with you is the way you talk to and mistreatment of other editors and completely breach our policies listed above and you ignored on sourcing and interactions with other editors here at Wikipedia. I sure am not alone in bringing these concerns to your attention. I will report you for your constant personal attacks and incivility. In the meanwhile why don't you try focusing on content issues and discuss the points I've made at Talk:Australian Broadcasting Corporation and justification for the couple of policy based edits I made today. Thank you. Merphee (talk) 04:16, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Please don't accuse me of bias." Let's test that. Is The Australian right wing? HiLo48 (talk) 04:19, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. You just continue. Look I've got better things to do. You asked me to justify my edits at Talk:Australian Broadcasting Corporation. I've done that. But then you refuse to discuss it over there. My edits are policy based. The overwhelming majority of reliable sources say what they say. My belief and opinion on the topic means nothing. Zero. I have no opinion about it. I include ONLY what the majority of reliable sources say as we are told to do. That's it. Nothing more nothing less. Please try and follow our policies HiLo48. Thank you. Merphee (talk) 04:24, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gee. YOU came to MY Talk page to threaten me, but don't want to hear what I think. Yeah, that's an open, objective mind. HiLo48 (talk) 04:41, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to remind you that here at Wikipedia we must follow policies and show respect toward other editors. You asked me to discuss a couple of edits made at the ABC article but you then refuse. I can only assumne therefore you have nothing to say based on ppolicy at least If you do please go to Talk:Australian Broadcasting Corporation. The study from 2009 actually states the complete opposite of what you wanted it to say. It aligns with the same conclusions of the majority of other reliable sources. Minority or fringe points of view, such as comments from ABC employees - including managers, does not in any way discount the overwhelming majority of reliable sources statements on the political bias of the ABC. And I welcome your content focused comments over at the talk page please if you have time. But yes obviously your incivility needs to be reported as so many other editors have done and is a separate matter entirely. I won't tolerate it from you that's all. Merphee (talk) 04:57, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Reliable sources" are all those media outlets I proved to you up above are right wing. HiLo48 (talk) 04:59, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously you don't want to comment here Talk:Australian Broadcasting Corporation as you put a source and statements about the ABC back into the article without actually reading what the source says . If you had you would see that the research actually made the complete opposite conclusion and was the only media TV station not to be centrist! Please read the Sources, HiLo48. Reliable Sources only please. Thank you. Merphee (talk) 05:07, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What I saw was a swag of changes at the article, most without Edit summaries, swinging the article to your preferred position, with nothing here on the Talk page to explain your actions. My action got you to do what you should have done in the first place. I'm still not happy, but I'm up against a pretty tough POV pusher in you, and don't have the time to dig into it like you. I wonder how hard you worked to achieve your goal? I'd still be interested in your views on my analysis of what is right wing and what is centrist. HiLo48 (talk) 07:10, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I made a few minor edits today then directly followed them up on the talk page. You sure did not havce anuything to do with me following our policies. Lol. For 6 hours though you have ignored them and continued with your personal attacks and have wanted to waste my time about other issues??? Dude i've got better things to do. My comments I've made in this thread are ample. You revereted an edit I made in reference to a research study that when I read it, actually showed that out of 27 media organisations the ABC was the only one that diverged from a centrist perspective. You obviously have no argument and are clearly embarrassed which is understandable given the gravity of your error. No wonder you don't want to discuss it over at Talk:Australian Broadcasting Corporation. I won't take your bait. Keep on being uncivil. Keep on with that baseless bad faith accusations dude. I'm just addin em to the list! Merphee (talk) 07:41, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're really not good at discussing these things, are you? Nor even at reading what I have actually written. Nor being a real man. I got you to follow procedures, and you can't even admit it. HiLo48 (talk) 08:06, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, just keep on avoiding admitting your embarrassing error today which talks to your competence and apparent inability to read the reliable source before you make wholesale reverts and instead of talking content over at Talk:Australian Broadcasting Corporation keep on with the personal attacks like saying "I'm not a real man". I won't take your bait. I'm only here to help improve the project and follow policies. Merphee (talk) 08:13, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gutless wonder. AFTER I called you out, you added something to the Talk page. Admit it. Or you just look weak. You're showing all the honesty and principle of the party you so love. HiLo48 (talk) 08:17, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nah dude. I'm not the gutless wonder here. The pleasant discussion on your talk page is over and out as far as i'm concerned. However the Talk:Australian Broadcasting Corporation is the place for the ongoing content dispute. Merphee (talk) 11:15, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on ANI re masculine reality

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding Breach of Civility. The thread is Only real men edit Wikipedia. --Pete (talk) 09:45, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You probably saw that discussion be closed. It has been re-opened, and there are comments that you should look at and respond to.Lurking shadow (talk) 08:03, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. How long do I have to continue responding to this nonsense? HiLo48 (talk) 09:49, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for Paul Cronin

On 17 September 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Paul Cronin, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.

DBig Xrayᗙ 10:25, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your good work in improving this article to make it ready for Mainpage. I was away and I am glad that this was posted in time. You deserve credit for this being not ignored. Although I can understand why some folks were not amused by the comments and considered it over the top, I also believe that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. I am not sure if you were aware of the generally followed procedure at ITNC (marking as READY etc), but I am sure following that would have generated less drama and could have got the work done. Anyway, I regularly post at WP:ITNC and I will be glad if you could join in and help me to improve the articles I nominate there. Together with other editors we could achieve this and I hope we would be able to get many more successful collaboration in future too. Thanks.--DBig Xrayᗙ 10:25, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. The above was written without the knowledge that you were sanctioned from ITN or if that sanction is still valid. But I would still be glad if you can collaborate in improving some of the ITN/c nominations by me that you would like to improve. The credits will be shared. At the end, I would request you to not be so aggressive towards admins in general. They are also volunteers like everyone else, and deserve equal respect like all of us. I believe they are not in enough numbers and this leads to many other issues,(ITNC's getting stale, due to lack of admin attention, being one of them). Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news#RD:_Carol_Lynley was one recent case and we were able to get it posted on time. regards. --DBig Xrayᗙ 10:36, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I've had some run-ins over the years here with some blatantly POV-pushing Admins. It's hard to have respect for a system where the Admins never block other Admins for poor behaviour. No I wasn't aware of the READY flag, and saw the criticism of me for that as yet another sign of Wikipedia's biases. The Paul Cronin item was struggling to be posted because he wasn't a mainstream American star. Coming from that under-represented cohort myself meant that I was effectively being criticised for not being mainstream. However, I agree with your sentiments on getting more items up on ITN, especially the non-mainstream ones. Not interested in credit. I'll do my best. HiLo48 (talk) 11:04, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As you mentioned in the threads above, WP has diverse set of editors, some of them would like things to be done in manner that is generally followed. I dont think, the users there were pissed off by bold text or multiple "Attentions" but by being called biased. I think in our case (Cronin's nomination), the entry was not being looked upon probably due to lack of admin attention and possibly being a subject that folks were not interested in. It might have to do with something about the subject not being from US or UK where most of our editors are. But in general I have found that these subjects from other places do get the attention sooner or later. User:DBigXray/ITN has a big list and I am sure you will find that majority of them are not from US-UK and yet have succeeded. Wikipedia has its WP:BIASes but we also have ways to solve it, lets be a part of the solution. Thanks for agreeing to help on my Noms, You can watch-list my talk page to keep a track of my nominations. Looking forward to our future collaborations. cheers. --DBig Xrayᗙ 11:19, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A question about editing

Hello! I'm super new to wikipedia editing and this is my first time posting on a talk page, so I do apologise of my netiquette is wrong, please feel free to correct me if there is something that I'm not doing right. I just have a question regarding editing. I'm currently drafting an article on a known charity, so I am writing about the founders a lot. I was just wondering whether when we are speaking about people are we supposed to use their first or last name? Or both? I can understand using their whole name when introducing them, but I'm not sure what I should be addressing them as through out the rest of the article. Thank you. Eevee123 (talk) 04:34, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In most cases, I think the surname alone is appropriate, once initial "introductions" are done. Note that I've dded a section heading for this discussion above. Your question is fine. Good luck! HiLo48 (talk) 04:41, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lakerboy23 (talk) 04:43, 6 October 2019 (UTC)Thank YouLakerboy23 (talk) 04:43, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DS ALERTS BLP and Climate change

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33 NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:12, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in climate change. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33 NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:12, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bushfires in Australia (2019 NSW Fires)

I'm pretty sure that all the information in the 2019 NSW Bushfires was put on the Bushfires in Australia article because Wikipedia didn't have an article created for the 2019 NSW Bushfires yet. Maybe we should just keep the info until the page is created? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.101.171.10 (talk) 05:41, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably right. We certainly could do with an article on the fires. My deleting the extensive prose hasn't removed it from existence. It's still there in the History of the article. I'm a Victorian, with very limited knowledge of the places involved. I don't think I'm in a good position to create such an article. Would you be able to get it underway? HiLo48 (talk) 05:53, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You

Thank you very much for the nice welcome! Much appreciated! Aspenkiddo (talk) 17:05, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marriage - "drub abuse"

That page is "semi protected" and not editable by low status folk such as myself. I used to do a lot of work on Wikipedia, but got so annoyed by people deleting my stuff, that I now spend my time tidying up old newspapers in Trove. Q: Why don't you do Wiki any more ? A: If I wanted to spend my time arguing with idiots, I'd go on Twitter. Best wishes from Wales.78.144.90.5 (talk) 14:05, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Trove is definitely a worthwhile project. HiLo48 (talk) 22:45, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the cookies

Thanks for the cookies it's nice to get a nice welcome here I hope to contribute a lot more soon. Cheers!

Sabaybayin (talk) 12:57, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

:-) HiLo48 (talk) 22:07, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ease up on the aggression, please

Hi HiLo48. Could you please read WP:DONTBITE? We don't actually know that the IP editor at talk:Bruce Pascoe is new, only that they are newly using that IP Address. If they are new, we want them to be encouraged to join up and contribute more. If we drive them away from the first article they are interested in, we all lose. I've seen experienced Wikipedia editors get indenting on talk pages off sometimes, too. It doesn't make their opinions or responses to policy and sources any less valid. IP editor might be sounding a bit tired and frustrated, but that is an opportunity for the rest of us to model the behaviour we expect, not an excuse for us to go even lower. ...and it was me, not the IP, that found a source for the credentials of each of Bolt's three referees. They do appear to be who Bolt says they are. I didn't find independent sources that confirm they said what he said they did, except I think at least one is in his video (I lost patience with Bolt before I got through it when I tried to watch it). --Scott Davis ^Talk 07:59, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because that IP editor's address changes frequently, it may be difficult to find, but at the earliest address he used on the Bruce Pascoe page, I assumed good faith and actually gave him a formal welcome, then a more personal one, in part addressing one of the things he wasn't doing well, probably indenting. I was polite and welcoming throughout. I continued this for some time. My efforts have not been reciprocated. Because I knew his changing IP address might have led him to miss my advice, I gave some on the talk page. Again, nothing but rudeness in response, and continuing incompetence in indenting and other aspects of editing. He doesn't sometimes get it wrong. He gets it more wrong than anyone I've ever seen in all my time on Wikipedia. He has ignored (or been unable to follow?) good faith advice from several other editors. Don't ask me to continue to be polite to someone displaying both such a crappy attitude and such blatant incompetence. HiLo48 (talk) 09:06, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey buddy, I removed the swearing. Nothing personal, I always find your contributions helpful and believe you are an excellent editor. Just had to remove the swearing it is a personal attack and I was removing another personal attack by the IP with a "crappy attitude", and thought I'd better be consistent. Hope there's no hard feelings. Cheers mate. Bacondrum (talk) 04:09, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there ARE hard feelings. The behaviour of that IP editor deserves far more than having a single personal attack removed. He is damned rude, incompetent, and a completely unhelpful contributor. And what I wrote wasn't a personal attack. It was a statement of truth. You either didn't read or didn't understand what was said there. How can the truth be a personal attack? And I don't appreciate threats for trying to maintain Wikipedia's standards. HiLo48 (talk) 04:50, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You got upset because a reasonable suggestion was made regarding the inclusion of the dispute as to Pascoe's aboriginal heritage & you were working hard to exclude it. You were the one who started swearing & being passive-aggressive over trivialities such as indenting; mostly, I stuck to my point which you constantly tried to ignore. You hold a clear bias on a matter that's become of interest to Australians & another skirmish in the long-running history wars. Simply noting Pascoe's claims & the counter-claims of the various tribes in the article from a NPOV allows the reader to make up their own mind, or research it further. That's the purpose of an encyclopedia. 202.161.26.104 (talk) 14:22, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why does Pascoe's ancestry matter so much to you? HiLo48 (talk) 02:07, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A more pertinent question is: Why does it matter so much to you that he be aboriginal? 182.239.205.163 (talk) 10:28, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter to me in the slightest what his ancestry is. And who are you anyway? HiLo48 (talk) 10:55, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your actions betray your words. Why not present both sides of the debate for the reader to make up their own mind? 202.161.0.29 (talk) 11:16, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh look. Another gutless, unregistered editor in attack mode. I wonder who this one really is? HiLo48 (talk) 17:23, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. You know it's me, any deflection will do, eh? No one's attacking you, you're the one resorting to ad hominem. The epitome of being gutless is to continue pretending that you're neutral on this issue & preventing Pascoe's article from including both sides of the debate. 182.239.192.91 (talk) 03:01, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"You know it's me..." Whoever you are, you are editing from an IP address from which no-one has ever edited Wikipedia before. You aren't registered, so there is no way on Earth I can possibly tell who you are. You could be anybody. Piss off whoever you are and stop wasting my time. HiLo48 (talk) 05:38, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have no control over what IP address appears on my edits; that's a WP thing. I don't know who you are either, and it's not relevant. You could be anybody. So, why are you so scared to present both sides of the debate for the reader to make up their own mind? What's your vested interest? 182.239.199.93 (talk) 04:01, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your IP address is NOT a WP thing. It's an internet thing. Your ISP allocates you an IP address. It's a unique address in the world. Readily available tools can track you down fairly finely. I can tell you that it's likely that you are with TPG, and located in or around Richmond, Vic. (Sometimes they're out a bit.) Wikipedia Talk pages work best if editors have unique identifiers, so if you aren't registered, Wikipedia displays your IP address. With most ISPs, they rarely change. Unfortunately, yours seems to change frequently, so other editors cannot tell if you are the same person as one who has made any comments here before. But there's a simple solution, register. If you do, your IP address disappears. Nobody can tell where you are, but you have the same Wikipedia ID every time you edit. Then you can conduct coherent conversations. I strongly recommend doing so. It gives you better security, and I have never heard of anyone having a problem from doing it. HiLo48 (talk) 06:04, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, why are you so scared to present both sides of the debate for the reader to make up their own mind? What's your vested interest? 182.239.199.93 (talk) 13:54, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you just completely change the subject, as if I hadn't written any of my previous post? It really is very difficult discussing things with you. (And please note that, because your IP address has changed again, there is nothing connecting whoever wrote that comment with whoever wrote the earlier IP address based posts in this thread. You could be anybody. Please register. HiLo48 (talk) 15:38, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is only one subject: why are you so scared to present both sides of the debate for the reader to make up their own mind? 182.239.218.174 (talk) 04:03, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't two sides, and I really can't be bothered communicating further with a fool who won't do the sensible thing and register. Just piss off and go and annoy some other editors with your constantly changing IP address, or bloody well register!!!! HiLo48 (talk) 05:26, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you so scared to present both sides of the debate for the reader to make up their own mind? 202.161.3.186 (talk) 09:42, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Piss off. HiLo48 (talk) 20:58, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive reverts

Hi, HiLo48

As far as I know, the action of reverting, when there is no vandalism and the edit was in good faith, is rude and unpolite. In my case in particular, I don't think that adding a significative image of an earlier football game depiction and a caption with further information about the image, can be consider a disruptive edit. In fact, I have made some previous additions on this article and never received a complaint.

If you are going on with this (I hope you won't), please at least justify such action or I'll have to report any reversion so I don´t want to be involved into an unnecessary edit war.

Thank you - Fma12 (talk) 10:30, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit summary was somewhat cryptic, large slabs of text appeared to have been moved (perhaps the fault of the way Wikipedia displays differences), and there was a change of name of the game. In my experience this is often done by people with some sort of an axe to grind. Maybe that's due to being in Australia where soccer fans are working hard on a form of Newspeak. Sorry if I misunderstood your intentions. HiLo48 (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Everything clarified now. In fact, I had not moved any text from the main article, only added some to the Rugby school image caption to bring further information to that. Furthermore, my only edits were not related to soccer at all. And I mention this word in quotes because in Argentina we know this sport as fútbol (from Spanish). As you can see, the word "football" involves such a large amount of different codes that I would never dare to change its name on an article. Sometimes, cellphones show previous edits in a confusing way, I've experienced that.

Thank you for your feedback and your understanding, regards. Fma12 (talk) 10:13, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You were mentioned

You were mentioned Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#HiLo48's_incivility_on_Talk:Bruce_Pascoe over here. I'm the one that posted it, so any slings and arrows can come my way. Necromonger...We keep what we kill 15:11, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If it makes any difference

I saw your posting on the ANI board, for the record, no I don't want to silence you. I actually find you very intelligent, and you're actually more like I am than you realize. I love nothing more than a spirited debate, and it seems like you do to, that said, I also realize spirited debates go over like a lead balloon over here. Just tone it down a bit, that's all Necromonger...We keep what we kill 13:50, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wekeepwhatwekill Did you actually read, believe and accept ALL that I wrote there? The three simple folk (probably Admins) who had responded by the time I looked yesterday clearly hadn't. Their responses were shallow, and addressed only fragments of what I wrote. It's the entirety of the picture that matters. Won't go back again to look. It just annoys me. (Well, I might look again in a few months, just for laughs, and confirmation of what I'm writing here.) And it will all go nowhere. Nothing will change. POV pushing will continue, ESPECIALLY by Admins, and they never censure each other. I just avoid places like that on Wikipedia. I have never reported anyone there. The main value I see in places like that is to keep officious pricks out of the way of the real work on Wikipedia. A good thing. Just to summarise my position, I worked bloody hard to turn that IP editor into someone useful, harder, I suspect than anyone else. It got nowhere. The bloke is incompetent, or being deliberately confrontational. There is nothing left to be gained by being nice to him. I will treat his efforts as the garbage they are. HiLo48 (talk) 21:24, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers

Damon Runyon's short story "Dancing Dan's Christmas" is a fun read if you have the time. Right from the start it extols the virtues of the hot Tom and Jerry

This hot Tom and Jerry is an old-time drink that is once used by one and all in this country to celebrate Christmas with, and in fact it is once so popular that many people think Christmas is invented only to furnish an excuse for hot Tom and Jerry, although of course this is by no means true.

No matter what concoction is your favorite to imbibe during this festive season I would like to toast you with it and to thank you for all your work here at the 'pedia this past year. Best wishes for your 2020 as well H. MarnetteD|Talk 11:42, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't want me either

Hi,

I just saw the 'Wikipedia doesn't want me' section on your userpage, and thought I should tell you that you're not alone: I can relate to pretty much everything there, especially the It prefers blatant misrepresentation of other editors’ comments, so that POV pushing editors can argue against something that was never said, and then claim they have won the day. and It allows the most outrageous lies and bullshit to be written about editors, without consequence. bits. Me and my Wikipedia reputation remain to this day affected by ridiculous carping and sh*t-strirring against me that happened years ago. The only reason it hasn't continued to happen is because I have kept a much lower profile than before. I was once falsely accused of white supremacy, and some editors here still blindly believe that despite not having seen any real evidence (because there is none! And if there was, I'd have been blocked for it long ago). That's just one of the many things that have happened to me. I could go on, but you get my drift... Adam9007 (talk) 03:42, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I have sometimes toyed with the idea of formally seeking Adminship, simply to see the hate and vitriol I would attract for doing so. HiLo48 (talk) 03:53, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I always thought that when one accuses another of wrongdoing, it's up to them (the accuser) to prove their (the accused's) guilt, but I've noticed that it's always up to me to prove my innocence. How exactly I can prove that I'm not a raving lunatic, I don't know

. Adam9007 (talk) 03:58, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I noticed your contribution to the Gaol vs Jail discussion, and thought I'd add that I was once involved in a very similar "discussion" (if you can call it that) about Mediaeval vs Medieval and Connexion vs Connection. I am convinced that had it been me who'd made such a revert, there wouldn't be the sensible discussion there is now; instead I'd just be blocked for disruptive editing, and any arguments I might make automatically dismissed. That's another thing I was referring to. I really hate "discussions" whose outcome had already been decided before it's even begun! Adam9007 (talk) 04:34, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And there certainly is too much of that here. On that spelling front, I was actually reported once for reverting a change to American spelling on an Australian article back to Australian spelling. I was accused of Edit warring, the accuser not having noticed that I had made only one change, with a polite Edit summary. (Other editors had made more changes.) After the usual pile-on of abuse, the case just faded away at ANI. Nobody got into any trouble for false accusations, or wasting everyone's time. Which reminds me, it's really sad that so many Americans don't know that a huge part of the English speaking world spells a lot of words differently from them. Love your User page BTW. HiLo48 (talk) 04:49, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Love your User page BTW Thanks. I've been thinking about putting some political userboxes on it, but I hesitate lest someone misinterprets them (the last time I put anything political there, someone misinterpreted it, and frankly assumed bath faith. You know where I'm going with this.... (that's mainly why I think I should do it, if you know what I mean? Otherwise I wouldn't bother, seeing as they often cause more trouble than they're worth, as I discovered to my cost.)). By the way, that userbox has since survived MfD not once, but twice, so it obviously wasn't just me being naïve. Adam9007 (talk) 05:40, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Thank you for leaving this[[17]] kind message. I've spent 3-4 years editing WP ten years ago but now I'm trying to get paid for my writing. I've seen you're Australian, I hope you're safe. My mate and his family are down under at the moment, they're somewhere north of Sydney and I'm kinda worried about them right now. Anyway, thank you and have a nice day. 78.114.197.90 (talk) 13:21, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your mate should be OK. The worst of the fires are now south of Sydney. I live close to Melbourne. We had a very wet spring, so the danger is not so high here right now. HiLo48 (talk) 21:08, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ashes

What are you talking about? Have you even read the article? It says Stokes would have been given out if the decision had been able to be reviewed. I’m not citing Stokes’ quote (he disagrees with the Hawkeye decision btw), I’m citing the fact that the DRS review showed three red lights, which means he would have been given out. But again, if you’d read the article you’d know that; instead, you’re spending time arguing a position that isn’t being contested. Work on your powers of comprehension, my man. – Pee Jay 21:34, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PeeJay2K3 - Yes, I read the article. It's full of tabloid language, with conflicting claims. At no point does it say "had the decision been reviewed, it would have been given out." That is YOUR interpretation. Unfortunately, too many of our sports articles end up that way too. This is an encyclopaedia, not a tabloid newspaper. You can attribute opinions to players and writers, but you cannot write what they say as if it's absolute fact. HiLo48 (talk) 22:39, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It’s not my interpretation, it is an accurate reflection of the fact that the DRS review showed three red lights, as shown in the article, which means Stokes would have been given out. The article exists because Stokes disagrees with DRS’s assessment that he would have been given out. If it weren’t the case that he would have been given out, he wouldn’t have needed to make that comment. Please read the reference properly in relation to our article before coming out with any more nonsense. Cheers. – Pee Jay 00:36, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are simply not understanding what reliable sourcing means. HiLo48 (talk) 01:08, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, I get it. We can't reference the three red lights directly, as that's a primary source, so I've provided a source that mentions them – a secondary source. I'm starting to question whether you even remember the incident. Stokes was given not out, remember? But according to the DRS procedure, which Australia weren't able to use because they'd run out of reviews, he should have been (and would have been, had the review been available) given out. The article I have cited takes it a step further, with Stokes saying he thought HawkEye got it wrong. In what way is that not a reliable source? – Pee Jay 11:44, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PeeJay2K3 - It's a completely reliable source to say something like "The DRS system displayed three red lights" but not to say, with certainty, in Wikipedia's voice, that he would have been given out. That would be speculation. You can also quote what Stokes said, so long as you make it clear it's what Stokes said, and not absolute fact. HiLo48 (talk) 22:22, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But you know what three red lights means, right? It means the batsman will be given out. – Pee Jay 15:00, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have made my point. You can choose to ignore it if you wish. I'm not going to keep repeating myself. But I know I'm right. HiLo48 (talk) 23:39, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing how you can "know" you're right when you're absolutely not. – Pee Jay 14:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you've thought about even a word I've written. HiLo48 (talk) 23:05, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

Notice of noticeboard discussion

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

Star Gold Coast

{{Help me}} Hi Hilo48 and thanks for your feedback, i don't have any conflict of interest with the "The Star Gold Coast" , i don't work or represent them , i know the news website from where i took the info. Can you undo your "undone" ? I think you made a mistake , Divine Lexi (talk) 23:46, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Divine Lexi - OK. Sorry about my mistaken assumption. However, the content you added read far more like an advertisement for the venue than proper encyclopaedic content. It was also pretty directly copy and pasted from the casino's own marketing material. That is a breach of copyright. We cannot do that. If you really feel that event needs to be mentioned in the article (I even have my doubts about that - the charity angle might swing it thoiugh) try to rewrite the material much more briefly, still using the same references. HiLo48 (talk) 01:17, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of tea for you!

Let us share one together! Aaron Smulktis (talk) 09:18, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you HiLo48, not sure what Barnstar I should use, am correcting the obvious errors, I'm a Perfectionist trying to make things better & very accurate. Steve. Steve300659 (talk) 02:04, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign

If you're going to make an inflammatory comment such as this, please sign it with your name. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:35, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you think mine was the inflammatory comment, you don't seem to understand the nasty politics at play there either. (But I've signed it now.) HiLo48 (talk) 03:50, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've signed it now — Thanks. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:55, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To add to this, this is an unfortunate comment of yours:

Please provide this evidence here. But don't waste your time doing so if it comes from any Murdoch/NewsCorp outlet, or Quadrant

Please try to align yourself with neutral Wikipedia policies on reliable sources. Saying you won't accept anything references from the 70% of Australian papers that are right of center (left of center by 1990 standards) is an absurd position. And more broadly, please try to recognize that people can validly have vastly different opinions to you. I think the left wing press in Australia is more deranged and less reliable than you think the Murdoch press is, but I would never say something to another editor such as "Don't waste your time providing sources from the left wing Sydney Morning Herald, the Age or the ABC". Collaborative editing works a lot better if you at least take on the premise that those with whom you vehemently disagree aren't any more evil or dishonest than you are - because they rarely are. Phil153 (talk) 00:12, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Phil153 I can assure you I am fully aligned with Wikipedia policies on reliable sources. You may wish to read Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 269#Wikipedia policies on reliable sources regarding Quadrant. It is regarded as quite unreliable, particularly on matters surrounding Aboriginal people. Given that ruling, you can see my point about wasting your time. For some thoughts on Murdoch/NewsCorp, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 280#Herald Sun and Andrew Bolt. As for dishonesty, That is the whole point of those discussions. Murdoch is great for the footy scores, but a pointless source for facts on political matters. The latter conversation above highlights the problems created by Murdoch's semi-monopoly. Those who consume only his material end up somewhat brainwashed and not able to even accept that it may not be the truth. Here is evidence of some lies from Murdoch on a slightly different matter - [18] HiLo48 (talk) 00:38, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously!?

You should have labelled this one {{sarcasm}} and categorised with Category:Wikipedia humor!

Cheers. Aoziwe (talk) 13:29, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt if that contributor (who has made only that one edit) would know what sarcasm is. HiLo48 (talk) 22:07, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Help

I am a librarian blocked from updating a page for my university. I will file COI on my user page once I create it.Krherold (talk) 16:30, 15 January 2020 (UTC)krherold[reply]

COI filed on my new user page. Krherold (talk) 16:50, 15 January 2020 (UTC)krherold[reply]

Hi! Thanks so much for sending me your cookies. I am new here, and I'm very happy to star participating!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leonardo T. Cardillo (talk • contribs) 01:22, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello HiLo48. You posted on my talk page about how an edit I made to the Bridge page seemed to be a test and was removed. The only edit I made was to revert another user's vandalism, so I'm not sure what you're referring to. Mirinoth (talk) 03:37, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops. My mistake. So sorry. I must have posted the same message on both yours and the other editor's page by mistake. Feel free to delete that message. (Though the links may still be helpful.) HiLo48 (talk) 03:48, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Medieval

Thanks for your good-faith edits to Elizabeth I of England and other articles. Per Google NGram the overwhelmingly most common British spelling of medieval is medieval, thus making that the preferred spelling, also per MOS:COMMONALITY. Doremo (talk) 09:52, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Just call me old-fashioned. There is nothing wrong with the old spelling. Not sure why you went to all that trouble to change it in so many places. HiLo48 (talk) 09:57, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed it being inconsistently used, that's all. I've also checked the Oxford English Dictionary, where medieval is the primary spelling. Doremo (talk) 09:59, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kobe Bryant

Sorry that an American basketball player ran over your dog. 72.208.178.248 (talk) 02:49, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may be amused to know that Kobe is actually my dog's name. I just find unthinking, obsessional behaviour on Wikipedia rather annoying. HiLo48 (talk) 02:51, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't know that mourning = unthinking, obsessional behaviour. 72.208.178.248 (talk) 02:55, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have made my point. You obviously don't get it. I'm not going to try again. Go away. HiLo48 (talk) 02:58, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't obsessive enough in my unthinking, spent the first several hours remembering the other famous young American basketball player. Remembering of him, anyway. The ITN nom set me straight, so thanks for that much, all of you! InedibleHulk (talk) 06:47, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please be more careful when you accept edits

Hello. Please do not accept disruptive edits like the one in Nick Kyrgios. The article is protected exactly because of edits like this one. Accepting them defeats the purporse of the protection. Thanks.—J. M. (talk) 10:32, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There was nothing obviously disruptive about that edit. HiLo48 (talk) 10:36, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for welcome and cookies

Have done lots of wiki edits, just not on public ones :) we will see

Kelaher (talk) 11:39, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Citizenship Affirmation

I see there that the proposal for a pledge of alliegance for Australian school students is gaining bi partisan support now that Tanya Plibesek has come out in favour <https://www.sbs.com.au/news/tanya-plibersek-calls-for-australian-children-to-take-pledge-of-allegiance?fbclid=IwAR3WrXq__mt0q3SSDDg1XEQNWu5rf40BcKY38wNXEOQEdz_7KKxZzc_s0Gc>. I also see that the proposed form of words is known as The Australian Citizenship Affirmation and has a bit of a backstory first being recited in public "on Australia Day in 1999 at Galston Park in NSW to celebrate 50 years of Australian citizenship" <https://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/citizenship/ceremony/affirmation>. Where would you agree is a good place to give the affirmation a bit of a write up on wikipedia? How about I go ahead and add a section about it on the article Oath of Allegiance (Australia)?

Aussieflagfan (talk) 16:42, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. We are not a news outlet. HiLo48 (talk) 17:28, 29 January 2020 (UTC)page[reply]

Someone else can update Ms Plibersek's page about it. I'm only talking about it as a variant of the citizenship pledge. It seems like both sides are getting Australians ready for this inevitable world war 3 now :(

Aussieflagfan (talk) 18:08, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Really? HiLo48 (talk) 18:12, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth II

Ya just added to my Wiki-stress, by opening up that old argument :( GoodDay (talk) 22:07, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: When an article focuses on the individual (like Elizabeth II) we go with the UK being singled out, shall we say. Where an article focuses on countries (like Commonwealth realm), we don't single out the UK :) GoodDay (talk) 22:35, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All true, but not likely to impress (or even be seen by) a new editor from one of those other realms who also happens to be a little inclined in the independence/republican direction. HiLo48 (talk) 22:39, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox heading in Liz's article has all the realms listed. Just hit the un-collapse button & there they are. GoodDay (talk) 22:49, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

True, but I doubt if people like the editor whose actions triggered my concern are likely to click on that button. But let's keep the discussions in the one place, and not here among my personal mess. HiLo48 (talk) 23:01, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. GoodDay (talk) 23:04, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW outside perspective: you two are reasonable and that other admin has a tendency to be... unpleasant (at best) :-( unsigned because she's vindictive 05:19, 2 February 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:E00C:9200:C1AA:47C1:89B0:A41D (talk)

Thank you

Just wanted to say thank you for thinking of a way to help me get started. Hopefully, I'll find my feet soon. I'll do some more reading on how things work. Ryderesident (talk) 11:47, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck. There's heaps to learn. HiLo48 (talk) 21:11, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DS alert refresh: AP

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33

Here's your friendly annual DS alert refresh for the AP2 topic area, roughly 10 months late. Enjoy! ―Mandruss ☎ 23:43, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What? I have no idea what this means. HiLo48 (talk) 00:00, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's why they included lots of informative links in the message. The most informative in my opinion is the discretionary sanctions link, in particular the section titled "Alerts". ―Mandruss ☎ 00:18, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But what did I edit that triggered this? HiLo48 (talk) 00:31, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Today I refreshed a number of editors who have recently commented at Talk:Donald Trump, and you were one of them. Even talk-only is considered editing in the topic area, although you have edited the article itself twice since the DS were in place. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:39, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. What a shame it has come to this. HiLo48 (talk) 00:42, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I second that emotion! ―Mandruss ☎ 00:43, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How to create an article

Um, hi. First of all, thank you so much for your warm welcome! That was very nice of you to do.

Second, I would like to ask you how to create an article that is not on Wikipedia. I know sometimes, when you’re reading an article, sometimes a word will be in red, meaning that it is not created yet and that you can click on it and create an article on that subject. But how do you create an article that’s subject isn’t in red? Sorry if you don’t understand what I’m saying. 😅😅 (By the way thanks for the cookies, I love cookies!)🤤🤤🍪🍪

                                                                                                                                                                   ArtistBookGirl ArtistBookGirl (talk) 05:26, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArtistBookGirl - I'd suggest you take that question to the Wikipedia Teahouse where it will reach a much wider audience than just me. HiLo48 (talk) 05:31, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I’ll do that. Thanks for the suggestion!🙏🏻🙏🏻 ArtistBookGirl (talk) 05:44, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

hmmm

the rots affair (ok rort) I think we managed to edit a response at exactkly the same time but looks like yours trumped mine - I was trying to leave wheres your source.. thanks heavens there are still eds interested in keeping up with the politics watching... JarrahTree 23:41, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

nope you call yours a dupe... sorry to have inter... whatevered... JarrahTree 23:43, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That was actually the second incident like that I experience within about ten minutes. Weird. HiLo48 (talk) 00:07, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for bothering you, but...

New Page Patrol needs experienced volunteers

New Page Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles. We could use a few extra hands on deck if you think you can help.
Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; Wikipedia needs experienced users to perform this task and there are precious few with the appropriate skills. Even a couple reviews a day can make a huge difference.
If you would like to join the project and help out, please see the granting conditions and review our instructions page. You can apply for the user-right HERE. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 20:17, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Insertcleverphrasehere - Thanks for the invitation but those pages linked there all look a bit daunting. I know I could help, but having to work through that long list of bureaucratic seeming requirements, formally apply, and face the possibility of rejection, is not an attractive proposition. Why make this all so hard? If Wikipedia truly wants "a few extra hands on deck", it should be pretty obvious who the good editors are who could help. So yes, I'd be happy to help. Just grant me the right. Stuff all the red tape. If that's not possible, maybe the problem isn't a shortage of willing helpers, but it lies in the process I'm looking at. HiLo48 (talk) 06:18, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Super Mario FX information

Hi! I just want to let you know that one of the programers for Star Fox on the SNES, Dylan Cuthbert, confirmed on Twitter back in 2012 that Super Mario FX wasn't a real game. He (Dylan) said "no, that was the internal code name for the FX chip".^[1] ArthurRead1976 (talk) 21:27, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://twitter.com/dylancuthbert/status/165596909413728256

Why following user name blocked ?

User:MyBuddha,

(Wingapluck (talk) 00:16, 3 March 2020 (UTC))[reply]

No idea. Nothing to do with me. HiLo48 (talk) 00:19, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanq, But the admin wrote reasons for block , following? Where to raise this question?

(anon. only, account creation blocked) (Usernames (religious figures ))

(Wingapluck (talk) 00:23, 3 March 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Wingapluck went on to ask the same question on their talk page. I answered it there; I don't think there's any need to answer it here as well. -- Hoary (talk) 01:21, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions

Explain how my edit was not neutral, I was stating facts. There are social programs in effect, and I did not go beyond that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FriedJinchuriki (talk • contribs) 01:35, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I don't know what edit you are referring to. More info please? HiLo48 (talk) 01:40, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A valid point

Could you still please include at least a note, that any of the teachings of Jesus hardly exist in any of the Churches, and if they do, they're pretty much passively interpreted and not put into action as should. Particularly His requirements to become a Christian in the first place in Luke 14.

Suggested edit : The teachings of Jesus found in the 4 Gospels, are void in almost every people group who identify as Christians.

As simple and harmless as that, thank you. <3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthmustbetoldtoall (talk • contribs) 17:37, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Truthmustbetoldtoall - You can add that content yourself, IF you have a reliable source that supports your claim. Remember the Bible is not regarded as a reliable source. HiLo48 (talk) 21:31, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney

I'm not sure if you've been following the "discussions" between Gracchus and me on our talk pages but it has gotten quite ridiculous. With Ashton now making personal attacks any productive discussion has virtually ceased. I'm not sure when, but I can see an ANI discussion on the not so distant horizon. --AussieLegend (✉) 22:42, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the quality of discussion from a couple of the supporters of a montage has definitely fallen below what is needed on Wikipedia. My most recent comment there could probably have been equally directed at Gracchus, but I have not been as big a target of his efforts as much as you seem to have become. It's times like I refer to Wikipedia:Don't-give-a-fuckism to at least partly guide my actions here. HiLo48 (talk) 23:02, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Never understood why Ashton was unbanned after the serial sock puppetry they did. I ended up giving up with editing most location (cities, suburbs ect) article's due to the ownership they have. Bidgee (talk) 01:19, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What did I miss!

Thanks for trying to dealing with the vandal on the 2019–20 Australian bushfire season talk page. I step away from the computer for almost a day and have a mess to clean up :(. Bidgee (talk) 01:16, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. We had an IP editor who knew far too much of how things work here to be a genuine newbie, who ran rampant for a couple of hours while I got told by a useless Admin that I had taken the problem to the wrong Admin page, which was bullshit. I love it when those who seek power can't fix problems brought to them by editors who actually care about the project, rather than their status, and would rather shoot the messenger. Probably thirty or forty abusive, offensive, homophobic and destructive posts before he was shut down. Took far too long. I don't know if all the mess has been cleaned up yet. HiLo48 (talk) 02:39, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, sadly seen too many IP editors knowing the system too well but playing dumb when caught. Spent a good hour or two getting the links where oversight is required but just got an email refusing it! At the point of going to WMF Trust and Safety, the stuff said is highly libellous (including a username they used to continue with the attacks) since people can attach a name to my username. Bidgee (talk) 06:12, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see Wikipedia's incompetent bureaucracy, along with it's POV pushing Admins and the other Admins who will never tackle that problem, as the major barriers here to making and keeping this a great encyclopaedia these days. HiLo48 (talk) 06:28, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not a forum and attacks on other editors in AP2 area

You're really walking a tight line that can get you in trouble. Negative and aggressive comments like this are uncalled for and personalize the discussion:

Obviously I wasn't the first to mention Russia, so drop the irrational abuse. Acting as if there is some automatic connection between Assange and Russia that "everyone" simply knows about is idiotic, and only comes from American haters of both.

I was also going to give you an AP2 DS alert reminder, but see that Mandruss has already done it above, so you know that your behavior is already being watched, after you have been alerted. You can avoid problems by being more careful and civil. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:19, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth is an AP2? If you want this place to work effectively, please don't talk in jargon, and start to realise that there are more views in the world than those held by a subset of the less than 5% of people who live in the USA. HiLo48 (talk) 02:25, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HiLo48: AP2 is shorthand for the topic area of post-1932 American politics, in the context of discretionary sanctions.
BullRangifer: The DS alerts are a requirement of the DS system and would be issued even to the best-behaved editor the project has ever seen. Thus, the alerts have nothing to do with "being watched" and I'd prefer not to have my username associated with that misinterpretation. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:51, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still puzzled by AP2. How did it get that particular jargonish name, and what does it mean for me, and anyone else not closely following that world? HiLo48 (talk) 02:53, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you puzzled about the term "AP2" specifically, or about DS in general? ―Mandruss ☎ 02:57, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Both, but the question was specifically about AP2. HiLo48 (talk) 02:59, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mandruss, I understand what you're saying and can see that my wording was unfortunate. My comment was intended to be more about noting that actions, such as incivility in the AP2 area, which can be viewed as violations of AP2 sanctions, especially after having received a standard notification, tend to lead to editors being watched more carefully. They need to tread lightly lest they continue down a negative path that can lead to more than a warning, but to an actual block. My comment was a warning and reminder that AP2 sanctions were at play. Incivility is not good, and we need to treat each other better. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:13, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The term AP2, is the second Arbcom case of post-1932 American politics related articles, which restricts editors to 1-revert per 24 hrs. GoodDay (talk) 03:11, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating. It still seems buried in jargon to me, and my (admittedly trivial) question still is, how did it get that particular jargonish name? HiLo48 (talk) 03:15, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2 (or AP2), here it is. GoodDay (talk) 03:19, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For DS, see WP:ACDS.
How did it get that particular jargonish name - Years ago the American politics area was placed under DS by ArbCom, and the acronym "AP" was used to refer to that particular ArbCom "remedy". Later it was decided that that remedy was ineffective, and it was replaced by a new remedy which was called "AP2". It's "jargonish" because it's a bit less cumbersome to say "AP2" than "second ArbCom remedy for the post-1932 American politics topic area"; that's the purpose of any acronym. More info at WP:ARBAP2.
what does it mean for me - The short answer isn't that complicated. Topic areas that are under DS receive more scrutiny, so we simply have to be more careful about our behavior when editing in those areas. For example, an editor accustomed to getting away with edit-warring or tendentious editing would be less likely to get away with it in a DS-governed topic area. So the purpose of a DS alert is simply to provide awareness that the topic area is DS-governed. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:23, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys. I hope you realise that most editors who are not frequent players in that area are not going to read all the background, will be confused when confronted by the jargon and hence ignore it, and will go on their merry way. HiLo48 (talk) 03:27, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thankful that we have that choice. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:31, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is also another aspect to DS sanctions in any area, not just AP2. It gives individual admins the power to instantly, without any procedures like AN/I, AE, or BLP/N, to dish out a sanction. It can be a warning, topic ban, short block, or indef block. Bam. They are given the right and power to do it on the spot. Most will give some sort of warning, but that's just being nice, and I rarely see an admin actually exercising their power, even when they should. Instead many treat the situation as if it were any other similar situation that was not under DS Sanctions. That's not right. They should act more aggressively. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:55, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd take that a step further. I think we sorely need some form of police force, like all communities have since the dawn of civilization. You give your policemen certain discretionary powers to protect the greater good, you trust them not to abuse them, and you fire them without years of agonizing "due process" when they do. Occasionally they make a bad call and somebody gets treated unfairly, and that's just life in an imperfect world, and it rarely happens to people who don't make a habit of testing limits. That's one of the reasons I could never be a Wikipedia admin; I wouldn't last a year. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:14, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We have largely lost sight of the fact that Wikipedia's death penalty is being required to find a different hobby, while the Wikipedia hobby didn't even exist 20 years ago, so every living person was already "Wikipedia-dead" and nobody saw that as a significant problem. This is a complete failure of perspective. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:34, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mandruss, I'm a bit uncertain about your last comment. I'm not sure if it's because there is some ambiguity there or if it's just my comprehension skills (I speak two languages every day and am a bit "language confused".)

Do you mean that if one receives "Wikipedia's death penalty" (banning), one must find ("required") a different hobby (than editing Wikipedia)? -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:06, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think that's what I mean. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:24, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Finding a different hobby is not the end of the world. I took myself off for a few years a while back. I took guidance from WP:Don't-give-a-fuckism. Found plenty else to do. But on this issue, I still regard the jargon as a huge barrier. Maybe that's partly 'cos it's US English? HiLo48 (talk) 22:08, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the Bob Hawke talk page

What it says in the title. 110.33.138.212 (talk) 08:56, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Silly nonsense about silly trivia. HiLo48 (talk) 09:18, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your candor

At the Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard you made a statement along the lines of “you and I are different, yet I don’t know your skin color and I don’t care. Furthermore this issue has always been and will always be politically charged” I agree wholeheartedly on both counts. But it concerns me that users (not you) are already making veiled personal insinuations just because a subject is unpopular. So I ask you as a long-standing editor who had the guts to be honest: what’s the solution? Do we honestly downplay well-sourced scientific research and data because of the potential political ramifications? Or do we simply report what mainstream verifiable sources say at the risk of bolstering views we may find abhorrent? I am not a free-speech absolutist, and understand the importance of tempering our information. I also am uncomfortable with this project taking the “high road” at the expense of not hurting feelings. Particularly if mainstream data is avaIlable on the subject. And if that data provides ambiguous or conflicting viewpoints, then we owe to the reader a balanced perspective, regardless of the discomfort it may cause. Just my 2 cents. Curious as to yours06:04, 2 April 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1012:B009:B8C7:B91D:A6C2:405C:8300 (talk)

Any science that has "proven" that having a different skin colour, or even speaking a different language (which seems to be one idiotic American racial identifier) makes you more or less intelligent is bad science. I cannot believe that cultural bias can be removed from IQ tests, and far too small a proportion of the world's population is ever given IQ tests anyway. I am glad I live in a country where race now plays no official part in how we treat and label people. HiLo48 (talk) 06:46, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. Not necessarily the question I was asking, but your frustration with the topic is evident. My initial statement was more to ask your advice on how to handle delicate articlesin times like these. One gets the feeling that by simply advocating for an unpopular opinion to be mentioned in an article, he or she is automatically categorized as an American, Trump loving racialist who represents the dark-web. When in reality, I’d just like an article more focused on hard science (whatever that science concludes), and less politically charged. As far as “races” go, I am far from hung up on the term. But I believe it’s certainly possible that different population groups possess different genetic traits. Whether “intelligence” (as we loosely define it) is one of those traits I honestly don’t know. But i do feel (strongly)we commit readers a disservice by not at least exploring the idea further. 2600:1012:B009:B8C7:B91D:A6C2:405C:8300 (talk) 07:11, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I gave up trying seriously years ago around articles like this because of the blatant racism of those who want to prove that black people are dumb. The science ISN'T good science. I tend to just pop in from time to time to annoy the bigots. Yes, different populations can, on average, have some measurable and important differences. Intelligence can't be said to be one of them because it has never been objectively measured on a big and broad enough scale. And significantly, the total amount of genetic difference BETWEEN individuals within groups is larger than the differences between the averages of different groups. HiLo48 (talk) 07:44, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, thank you for your time and good faith. Please remember, not everyone interested in popUlation genetics thinks a given group is “dumb”. Some of us are merely attempting to better understand the age old question of “nature vs nurture” (I know - the answer is “both”) 2600:1012:B048:7D39:8085:6789:CD5D:EF47 (talk) 07:54, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but for me, the intelligence vs race discussion isn't the place to find those more sensible matters. HiLo48 (talk) 08:20, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus - an important question about the bible and in general reverted

hello, HiLo,

first off thanks for the slightly critical stance you showed in the freemasonry talk, I like that

Then, I would like to ask what you think of this revert:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jesus&diff=948632057&oldid=948621639

A question as important as I stated, it is pretty absurd to revert this, as we all are concerned by this kind of force.

Maybe it is a bit forum like but with the importance ofn issue, certain talk is needed.

It is basically a very controversial passage of the bible, which could show that it was sincerely corrupted. Why would Jesus recommend to have fear of the most evil one of all? It would rather be a servant of the latter one who would do things like this!?

Matthew 10:28

Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

It is the question whether the last 2 words "in hell" were manipulated or are they real? Who is meant? If you are not faithful or believe in Jesus, this is a very interesting question, nonetheless. Thanks and have a good time. Philip--109.75.93.141 (talk) 15:35, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia content depends on reliable sources. The Bible isn't one. HiLo48 (talk) 21:36, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good riddance

I, for one, just want to say that I don't want you here on Wikipedia. Good riddance to you. Revan646 (talk) 03:40, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And I love you too. HiLo48 (talk) 03:46, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How to join groups on Wikipedia

Umm....I have another question(sorry). I just wanted to ask, how can I join groups on Wikipedia? Thanks. ArtistBookGirl (talk) 09:26, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean by groups. HiLo48 (talk) 10:03, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Um, so when you go to your account, then click on ‘preferences’, there will be some info about you, then there will be a ‘member of groups’. That’s the groups I’m talking about. ArtistBookGirl (talk) 10:15, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I don't think I've ever looked there before, and now that I have I notice that it lists five groups for me. Apart from the basic one of "Users" (which I assume you have), they are all things I've been offered over time as I've done more edits here. I didn't go out pf my way to ask for any of them. HiLo48 (talk) 10:27, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks! 🙏🏻🙏🏻 ArtistBookGirl (talk) 12:48, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It’s 76.223.244.197 again

HiLo48,

Thank you for being the one that gave me recognition back in July of 2019. I have a question for the longest time I’ve been editing without having access to my page because it’s protected so I can’t make the page to an account. I’m wondering if there a way to give me access. If so let me know on my talk page.76.223.244.197 (talk) 02:45, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’m talking about the IP page, this page. If there is any other questions. Let me know. 76.223.244.197 (talk) 15:24, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to keep my current page or do I make a new one ? 76.223.244.197 (talk) 21:02, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your invitation.

Thank you for the invitation, but the edits I made to Pseudoscience were clumsy, and I am ashamed of them. I am here to have some contact with people, but nobody wants me. Once I had an account here and made my best efforts, but most of my edits were reverted by some narcissists. So now I edit Wikipedia only sporadically. Let me use your words: Wikipedia doesn't want me. You invited me a year ago, but then I had a different IP 85.193.250.200 (talk) 17:25, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regards :-)

[1] ttps://twitter.com/dylancuthbert/status/165596909413728256

[1]

@@ Line 2,993: / Line 2,993: @@
 Regards :-)
-== ScoMo talkpage ==
-I've moved this here, because it's inappropriate [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AScott_Morrison&type=revision&diff=949821953&oldid=949761740 there.]] Besides, your post was a personal attack.
-::Wow Pete, you're extraordinary. Here I was having a quiet chat with someone, and you turn up to disagree with me, yet again, again, again and again. So very, very predictable. Do you ever reflect on your stalking and confrontational behaviour? [[User:HiLo48|HiLo48]] ([[User talk:HiLo48|talk]]) 12:03, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
-:::Speaking of reflection, take a moment to look at yourself. I could say the same of you, but I imagine that you have a watchlist as extensive as mine, and when there is activity on a subject of particular interest, you take a look to see what's going on. That's how it is for me. I see you jump in, time and time again, and I wonder, is this guy stalking me? I might go look up some recent occurrences to see if you have popped up on an article that you have never edited and would not be on your watchlist. Go check, HiLo. This is an article about the Australian PM, and my first edit on the article was last year, putting it on my watchlist. My [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AScott_Morrison&type=revision&diff=947023973&oldid=946986172 most recent edit] on this talkpage was two weeks ago, not in response to anything you wrote, I might point out. It's not all about you, HiLo. --[[User:Skyring|Pete]] ([[User talk:Skyring|talk]]) 18:19, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
-As it happens, I have had [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Andrew_Hastie_(politician)&action=history recent dealings] with the other editor - something to do with BLP sourcing - and when I saw his name pop up on a hot BLP article, I took a look. And found you. --[[User:Skyring|Pete]] ([[User talk:Skyring|talk]]) 18:49, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
-You want to continue this discussion, fine. I'm not stalking you. We edit the same articles and have them on our watchlists. The difference is that I try to keep the discussion on topic, rather than make [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis&curid=18312364&diff=949715076&oldid=949708501 pointless personal comments.] As for "confrontational behaviour", how do you think a reasonable person would describe your [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AScott_Morrison&type=revision&diff=949765476&oldid=949761740 in-your-face comment] copied above? Do you ever reflect on your own actions? --[[User:Skyring|Pete]] ([[User talk:Skyring|talk]]) 18:33, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:43, 8 April 2020

Hello

Message

Further

Reviewer and rollback

For keeping the baddies at bay...

Humor at Protected Pages

Thanks for information

Compliments on your sang froid

Nice Koekjes

Some words I'm working on

Thank you

I support you

A kitten for you!

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

A barnstar for you!

Barnstar

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #2)

I have to record this before it gets buried

A barnstar for you!

Proposed closure of RfC/U

A barnstar for you!

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

A barnstar for you!

A barnstar for you!

Useful source for Sport in Australia and footy people

A barnstar for you!

Aussie rules as AFL

A barnstar for you!

While you were out...

Items of cultural significance in Australia

A beer for you!

Precious

Someone has been editing as LoHi48

Request for input in drafting potential guidelines

Sorry For Being A F%^kup

ITN

What the hell is wrong with me?

Well played

Martin Flanagan

Western Sydney Wanderers FC

Football in Australia

Commendable restraint

My outburst

Barnstar

Recent post

Wondering....................

HiLo48 comments

Your trump card

Discussion at ANI

Edit summary

October 2013

Auntie Bonita, AO

Interaction ban between Pete and me - Thank you

Unblock

Monty Python

You have Cher in Australia right? Not just ABBA as an influence?

Discussions

A kitten for you!

Comment layout

Sorry

Relative popularity of the Socceroos versus Matildas in people's interests

A barnstar for you!

A Barnstar for you

Once upon a time - the moral of the story

Your draft submission Museum of Australian Democracy at Eureka was accepted

Barnstar

IBAN

Vandalism

Word to the wise

Justin Bieber RfC

I'm depressed. And confused.

Victoria (Australia) article

Do you know.......

Article assistance

Beards/computing

Australian sport naming rules

A cup of coffee for you!

Pop over when you get a chance