User talk:HiLo48

Welcome!

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

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

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

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

Further

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

David Hodgett

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

Reviewer and rollback

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

For keeping the baddies at bay...

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

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

Humor at Protected Pages

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

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

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

Thanks for information

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

Compliments on your sang froid

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

Nice Koekjes

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

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

Some words I'm working on

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

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

Thank you

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

I support you

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

A kitten for you!

For your sport work. :)

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

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

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

Wonthaggi desalination plant

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

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

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

A barnstar for you!

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

AN/I

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

Barnstar

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

We've had our moments, but

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

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

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

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

As I say, I've been there.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Topic ban enacted

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ENOUGH!!!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

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)

ITN

Regarding this edit, I'll remind you that you currently are banned from participating in ITN-related discussions.
To be clear, I'm not trying to stir up trouble. The comment itself was constructive, and I hope that you maintain this approach when the topic ban expires. —David Levy 13:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that note, but Jesus! I had no intention of breaching any ban, and didn't know I was!

I saw a topic, Paralympics summary, of which I have extensive knowledge, under the broader heading of Talk:Main Page. Nothing whatsoever there about ITN. ITN is only a small part of the Main Page.

How on earth am I supposed to see that as an ITN-related discussion? Maybe I could have done some interpretation myself, but that's not what we're supposed to do here.

I still believe my "prosecution" was a complete miscarriage of justice, and will remember that far more strongly than whatever it was I was alleged to have done wrong. (Much of the discussion was complete lies, so I don't actually know what my real sin was. I have a fair idea, but if I said it publicly a lot of people would instantly get very upset.) To be told now that I've breached this maliciously imposed ban sounds pretty much like pure entrapment.

I appreciate the good manners in your post, but my points above are sincere. I had no idea I was breaching my ban, which I still don't know the real reason for. (Generalisations won't help, when explicit lies were part of the case against me.)

But can you please tell me how the hell I'm supposed to know where these boundaries are? HiLo48 (talk) 19:01, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that note, but Jesus! I had no intention of breaching any ban, and didn't know I was!

I don't doubt that it was accidental, as I would tell anyone who claimed otherwise.

I saw a topic, Paralympics summary, of which I have extensive knowledge, under the broader heading of Talk:Main Page. Nothing whatsoever there about ITN. ITN is only a small part of the Main Page.

The discussion pertained to the issue of why ITN contained a sticky for the Olympics and not for the Paralympics.

How on earth am I supposed to see that as an ITN-related discussion?

The original poster wrote, "can you tell me why there was an 'Olympic summary' link in the news box but there isn't for the paralympics?".

To be clear, I'm not criticising you for overlooking this.

To be told now that I've breached this maliciously imposed ban sounds pretty much like pure entrapment.

As someone who supported the topic ban, I can only state that there was no malice on my part. I believe that you're well-intentioned, but your approach often has been adversarial and disruptive. (Conversely, in yesterday's post, you approached the issue of bias in a constructive manner.)

And believe me, this isn't entrapment. I have no desire to see sanctions piled on because of a technical violation that occurred in error. My hope was that posting the above warning, in addition to notifying you of the issue, would preempt such efforts on the part of those waiting for you to slip up.

But can you please tell me how the hell I'm supposed to know where these boundaries are?

According to the closure, you're "banned from WP:ITN (including commenting on anything related to ITN anywhere) for a period of six months" (beginning 29 July 2012). —David Levy 05:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Further, I note with sadness now that that thread has been closed. Given your heads up to me, I had no intention of adding to it, but to lock it up as a US vs World thread is just plain silly, and looks like censorship. In the world of disabled sport (and I mean most of the world) it's accepted as an obvious but sad fact that the US hasn't got it's act together on that front. Given that the US leads the world in rights for the disabled and in areas like public building access, it's just plain disappointing, not a point scoring area, that they don't do the sport bit well. The disabled athlete in my family dearly wanted to compete there, but it all fell through due to poor organisation in the US. That this can't be discussed on Wikipedia as an area of fact (not opinion - see the medal table), is a very bad look. HiLo48 (talk) 20:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the topic warrants discussion. I know very little about sports of any kind (so this isn't an area in which I can contribute a great deal of insight), but I agree wholeheartedly that our coverage of the Paralympics should reflect the attention received worldwide, not in the United States (or any country in particular).

I'm sorry that your relative wasn't able to compete. —David Levy 05:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh and to add to my earlier note - when I was banned, despite my feelings about the ban, I removed from my watchlist every article and page with ITN or In The News in the title, so that I wouldn't get sucked into contributing in that area. I really feel I've been trapped this time round HiLo48 (talk) 20:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Please don't worry about it. I take you at your word that it was an honest mistake (which would be the case even if you'd simply forgotten about the restriction). —David Levy 05:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

You must have forgot you were banned again, as you made another post on ITN... ;P http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMain_Page&diff=514563434&oldid=514561425 75.73.114.111 (talk) 04:04, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

That comment has nothing to do with ITN. Hot Stop (Edits) 05:18, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

LOL. It's incompetent posts like that from an unregistered American editor that confirm in my mind the appalling "justice" process here at Wikipedia. (Yes, I can tell they're probably from Andover, Minnesota, or thereabouts, something I wouldn't be able to ascertain if the unapologetic clown had bothered to register. And I make no apology for use of the word clown. He has just made a fool of himself, after all, and that's what clowns do, isn't it? If he had apologised in the two days I've give him, I may not have gone that far.) HiLo48 (talk) 08:52, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Isn't talking in ITN related to ITN? Oh I am a clown.. thank you :P! I have no idea what you are talking about!75.73.114.111 (talk) 10:40, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

You have no idea what you're talking about either. Those comments were made on the main page's talkpage, about a featured article. Hot Stop (Edits) 13:16, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

And just to make that 100% clear to the IP editor - 75.73.114.111, I wasn't "talking in ITN". There is much more to the Main Page than ITN. I was discussing an image in the section titled "Today's featured article". The featured article in question was about events that happened 96 years ago, hardly "In the news". "In the news" is a completely separate, independent section of the Main Page. So yes, you're right, it appears you have no idea what I am talking about. I patiently await your apology once you do figure it out. HiLo48 (talk) 18:43, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

jeez louis! i am only joking around! I am a clown after all! *honk honk noise as I poke my red nose*75.73.114.111 (talk) 05:34, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah. Right. (And that should be "Jeez Louise".) HiLo48 (talk) 06:44, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Sport in Australia

HiLo48 if you remove the mention about Rugby League ratings in "Sport in Australia" I will be forced to report you, as the tone of the article is still very much skewed in favour of the AFL POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afgtnk (talk • contribs) 06:43, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Please see the Talk page of the article. HiLo48 (talk) 06:51, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

The whole thing is a mess, I've taken it to WP:AN3 but will get slammed for the "long diff" logs but where do you start! Afgtnk is clearly a POV-pusher going by their last edit. Bidgee (talk) 10:16, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for patrolling that. I've updated the article to mention the MCG a bit, add more recent television ratings, add a bit more history stuff into the article to address the issues mentioned. I don't like venues in there as I think it gives extreme undue weight to a topic that I'm not seeing supported that way by the sources. The venues are almost always throw away lines in larger sport things, unless it is talking about cost and economics. Beyond that, a fair number of venue references have nothing to do with sport but other things taking place there. It is rather frustrating to deal with this as the MCG is NPOV pushing from an AFL/Melbourne view point. --LauraHale (talk) 21:03, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The MCG is much more than AFL. It's actually run by the Melbourne Cricket Club, the C in its name stands for Cricket, and our biggest Test Cricket crowds appear there every Boxing Day. I can understand that some Rugby League fans could see it as part of an evil AFL push, but it's more just a Melbourne thing. More Melbourne people go to just about any sport than in most cities. HiLo48 (talk) 05:14, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I know that part. What I actually know most about the MCG is that it did house troops during the second World War, which has nothing to do with sport. It also has a fantastic sport library and a great sport museum. The problem with venues is fine: The MCG but no section on the AIS? Cricket references in the article are sparse? Why do we have Stadium Australia but not the place where the Australian Tennis Open is held and not the place where the major motor sport event takes place Philip Island? And not the place where the Australian gold Open is held? Why not the venues where the arfura Games are held? The choice of venues tends to rather happenstance and subjective, with out explaining the importance to the overall sporting narrative for Australia. --LauraHale (talk) 20:10, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your patience with Sport in Australia‎. I feel like what I am saying makes sense, but I'm not sure how to explain the concept of this to a new editor. --LauraHale (talk) 12:38, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Garylieigh93 is a bit of a challenge. I'm guessing that the "93" means he's 19 years old. Would have been 7 years old at the time of the Sydney Olympics, so no perspective on that at all. And as for my alleged bias towards netball, don't worry, I'm just laughing. And you, being a female from the USA, totally unacceptable? LOL. Keep up the good work! HiLo48 (talk) 21:14, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm the one who went to ArbCom for netball. (Speaking of that, if you get the chance, can you look at the GAR for Netball and the Olympic Movement?) You didn't. Beyond that, while I am a female from the United States, I've been in Australia since April 2010 and my PhD thesis was about Australian sport. I covered the Paralympics in London. I covered the women's basketball team. I covered gymnastics. I covered the women's water polo. I covered the softball. I covered archery. While I didn't grow up in the culture, it actually means I have fewer cultural blinders to what is actually happening. (I've got my own which make me go "Why does Australia do that?") The whole thing is a bit weird. Improve the history section first. Get the facts that need to be in there first. Get the text more cohesive and unified. Once that is done, once the history is written, then we can go "Wow. Clearly rugby union isn't well represented in this history." --LauraHale (talk) 22:01, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. Loved your work on the Paralympics, BTW. I know quite a few of the Australians involved and actually felt a little too close to be able to write objectively on those people without a lot of effort. So thanks. (And I've just opened Netball and the Olympic Movement. Give me some time and I'll check it out.) HiLo48 (talk) 22:12, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I was happy with it. Hoping we can do something similar for the Winter Paralympics. It is just a bit harder. The objective part was easy enough if you just look at the sources. They need a big update post Paralympics, but hard to do. None of the Australian Olympians really got updated either. :( And thanks. The GAR has been sitting open for about a month and I'm too close to it to participate. --LauraHale (talk) 22:25, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't suppose you are a Commons photographer? --LauraHale (talk) 11:35, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

A very small number of the photos there are mine. I'd love to do more, but time is a problem. HiLo48 (talk) 02:39, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I need a reliable Australian photographer with cash for airfare, and time to take about 10 days off in December.  :/ This is turning out to be problematic. --LauraHale (talk) 02:43, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

It won't be me. Sorry. I'm a teacher, on duty until 21st December, then family duties! Good luck. HiLo48 (talk) 02:50, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

No worries. The IP address sock is back and removing sources and POV pushing on Sport in Australia. Can you keep an eye out? --LauraHale (talk) 07:54, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Yep. Note that the first rules for Austraian football were written down in 1859, so he's got that right. (The rules still exist and are in the Sports Museum at the MCG.) HiLo48

At this point, unless he has a properly formatted source, I don't care. I've got the sources. "Hess, Rob; Nicholson, Matthew; Stewart, Bob; de Moore, Gregory (2008). A national game : the history of Australian rules football. Camberwell, Victoria: Penguin. ISBN 9780670070893. OCLC 247974138." is probably the seminal work on the sport's history and it isn't clear when first played versus when it was codified. But yeah, he needs to adds sources. I want to take it to GA but it all needs to be sourced. --LauraHale (talk) 08:08, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Have a look at this link. (The "1858 TO 1869" part) HiLo48 (talk) 08:21, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I've got about 25 books on the AFL on my bookshelf, including three specifically on the history of the sport. :/ --LauraHale (talk) 08:32, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I can tell you're well resourced. It's impressive. HiLo48 (talk) 08:36, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

This relates to my PhD topic. The authors of "A national game : the history of Australian rules football" are the most reliable sources for this topic as they are sport historians. (There are equivalent sport historians in rugby league.) The major sport historians wrote that book and have come to a conclusion that the game dates back to prior to the writing of the rules for the first time but the exact origins are a bit murky. 1858 and 1859 are watershed years for the development of the game but it gets hard to determine how to source, and unless he is citing sources (and not removing them), it is hard to take the IP seriously. --LauraHale (talk) 10:06, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

The IP editor (and obviously sock puppet with at least two registered identities) is one of those problematic editors with whom it's impossible to communicate. He knows some rules in great detail, but lacks severely in the areas of normal human communication. HiLo48 (talk) 10:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

The IP addresses were blocked. And yeah, pretty hard to communicate but there is a demonstration of attempts having been made. The history section really needs to be blown out a bit more, and then moved to its own article. After that, decisions more on what to include that summarises each year. --LauraHale (talk)

Hantavirus Risk in Yosemite

Hi, I noticed you previously contributed to the brewing debate in the Yosemite National Park's Talk Page. I recently tried to add a section acknowledging its risk and my edit was strongly dismissed by User:Jojhutton. If the mention of deaths is the issue, then I believe we can include the information without directly mentioning the deaths.

I have written a new draft of this edit in one of my subpages: User:Airelor/Yosemite_National_Park.

Please take a look and suggest any other edits or make any changes as you see fit before I try to add it to the main Yosemite_National_Park page. If you know of any administrators or Wikipedia Users you can refer this draft (or me) specifically to for advice about this matter, that would be very appreciated too. Thank you. Airelor (talk) 21:17, 16 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 Stage one of the dispute resolution noticeboard request form. Here, participants fill out a request through a form, instead of through wikitext, making it easier for them to use, but also imposing word restrictions so volunteers can review the dispute in a timely manner. 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)

RFC:Position on homosexuality

In case you were wondering, I completely disagree with all of the BSA's discriminatory membership restrictions. As an athiest, it is possible for me to be unceremonially booted from the organization. However, within the Boy Scouts of America membership controversies article, I will work to ensure the information is as accurate as possible. Even if the official policy makes no sense. ZybthRanger ^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:16, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm old enough to remember when the atheist thing was big in Australia too, so I can understand that part of your position. Fortunately there's pretty much a "Don't ask, don't care" policy here now for all of the gay, god and girl issues. Much healthier. Maybe our goal for the article should be to make it clear that the BSA's official policy makes no sense, as you say. Would it be possible to quote enough of their own material to make that clear? HiLo48 (talk) 22:45, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I like your idea. I hope/wish it could happen.North8000 (talk) 23:13, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

It's a nice idea but I'm not sure it's possible. The only discrimination membership policy that is actually straight from a BSA site is Learning For Life's nondiscrimination policy. The BSA has made a point to not include its bigoted policy anywhere on their website. The closest thing to an official release is the BSA Legal site, which is only "created on behalf of the Boy Scouts of America" - essentially the BSA's lawyers releasing their policy decisions in a shrouded third party way. The other sources in the section are reports on BSA discussing parts of policy in reference to specific instances. And those reports are muddled as hell.

I'm trying to rework the 'Reaction to nondiscrimination policies' section, and going through the sources there are local councils making nondiscrimination policies, national reps stating that there are no issues with a local council's nondiscrimination policy, national forcing local councils to revoke nondiscrimination policies, national sticking by nondiscrimination policies by saying they apply to employees but not members... Actually, now that I think about it - after I rework the section that includes all of these referenced activities, it will be factually accurate but will illustrate how inconsistent and stupid it all is. Although I think I'm going to take a break from this for a day before coming back and finishing that. I realized this afternoon that the gay scout who was denied Eagle a few weeks ago is suddenly a big national news story today, so that article is going to get quite busy. I almost regret hopping in to get Wikiwind to talk to North about some changes and ending up getting dragged into all of this. ZybthRanger ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:46, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Sport in Australia.". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 13 October 2012.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 06:31, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

^^^^ LOL ^^^^

How much of everyone's time can idiots be allowed to waste before they are just plain eliminated? HiLo48 (talk) 03:31, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Only you can answer that, HiLo. I suggest you learn to deal politely with other editors and you will be in no danger. --Pete (talk) 06:18, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

LOL again. I'll work on my manners while you work on your competence. For starters, you could stop wasting everyone's time with frivolous forum shopping when nobody would agree with you at the article's Talk page. HiLo48 (talk) 06:48, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

More than one way to skin a cat. There's been some really good progress made on the article. --Pete (talk) 07:40, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

ROFLMAO - [[User:AusSport, who made this request, has been blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry. Suck it up Pete. Maybe there's a warning there for you. Drawing the attention of Admins to your strange behaviour by your own time wasting appeals may turn out to be counter-productive. HiLo48 (talk) 06:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

vvvv LOL vvvv

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Sport in Australia, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 23:42, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Off-topic political discussion

Interesting times. I've been a Labor voter all my life but would vote for Malcolm. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:46, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

The problem with that approach is that it would involve voting for a member of a party that would still include Tony Abbott, John Howard and Alan Jones. HiLo48 (talk) 06:45, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

What's wrong with this picture?

I wasn't clear. I'd never vote for a party that tolerated Howard, Abbott or Jones, but I can't see the Parliamentary Liberal Party ever elevating him to leader again. I meant Malcolm as part of another (liberal democratic?) party. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:49, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

That seems wise. I cannot comprehend why he remains with the bigots (sorry) Libs. HiLo48 (talk) 21:24, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Historicity of Jesus

Hello, I noticed the discussion going on on the Jesus talk page, and before weighing in I have a few questions. -- LWG ^talk 16:08, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

• What, exactly, is your current complaint about the article content? What would you like to see changed?
• Am I correct in understanding that you, personally, do not believe Jesus existed?
• What sources can you provide in support of that position?

The problem is in your second last line above. NONE of the content of nor the discussion on that article should depend on what anyone BELIEVES. Not surprisingly, but unfortunately, a lot of the contributors to the article, and most of the "scholars" whose views are so beloved by most contributors, ARE believers. Wikipedia should be an objective encyclopaedia. It should not be a platform for believers to reinforce their beliefs by seeking out the views of a very biased subset of the world's population on a person who may or may not have existed. That there are few non-Christian writers on the matter simply highlights the problem. We would be better off with no comment at all on whether Jesus really existed. It wouldn't hurt the believers, and it would be better for Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 22:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Jesus. We've got more third-party sources on the existence of Jesus than some Roman emperors. He existed, as did Mohammed and Buddha. Whether people believe some of the unlikely things said to have happened to these people is another matter. I don't.

If you set the verifiability bar high enough to exclude Jesus, then you are also going to be losing a lot of other historical figures. We don't need birth certificates on Wikipedia. --Pete (talk) 00:04, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

LOL. Missed the point, as usual. It's almost as if we speak different languages.HiLo48 (talk) 00:25, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I guess the people who think he didn't exist see "no comment" as affirmative... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:33, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. I have no idea what that post means. HiLo48 (talk) 00:36, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

You said we'd be better off with "no comment at all on whether Jesus really existed" (I tend to agree). I'm just guessing that some people would already interpret that as "taking sides"... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:40, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, from an encyclopaedic perspective, there can be no certainty about any of the things that make Jesus the basis of a religion. We can only describe the whole thing as stories that some people believe. The truth or otherwise of those stories is irrelevant to Wikipedia. So, therefore, is whether he existed. HiLo48 (talk) 00:49, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm puzzled as to what you believe history is, if not "stories that some people believe". Why not look up our article on William Shakespeare and see just how few concrete records we have. Yet nobody disbelieves his existence. We have some records from the time of Jesus describing his existence as a real person. What's the problem? --Pete (talk) 01:43, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I had hoped that the actual argument could be kept on the talk page where it belonged. I came here specifically to avoid it. What I am trying to determine is exactly why HiLo48 has a problem with the article as written. It appears that the article agrees with all the sources that have been shown so far. I can only conclude one of two things: either A) HiLo48 is aware of some sources that contradict the ones currently being used (in which case I would like to know what they are so we can look at them and if necessary incorporate them according to our Due Weight and NPOV policies), or B) HiLo48 has some personal objection to the wiki reporting what the sources say on this issue, in which case we should examine that and determine what if any merit his/her concerns have. I try assume good faith, therefore I am hesitant to just lambast HiLo48 as an antireligious crusader, so I wanted to give him/her a chance to clarify his/her specific, wiki-policy based concerns. To that end, I must respectfully ask everyone to refrain from posting any further discussion of how well supported Jesus's historicity is on this page. Please keep that on the article talk page where it belongs. To HiLo48 specifically: I am sorry that the discussion got off track. Could you please try again to give me a summary of exactly what parts of the article need to be changed, and what the wiki-policy reason for doing so is? -- LWG ^talk 04:10, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there's a lot of people with strong feelings who like to jump in on any discussion like this. I'm trying to keep the emotion out of it, and to avoid expressing an opinion on religion. I would hope that my lack of overt support for the Christian view doesn't make me an antireligious crusader. I really don't have much to say beyond my original response above. (Obviously others do.) HiLo48 (talk) 04:25, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, what I was hoping was that you would clarify what the wiki-policy basis was for your view, because your previous response appeared to reflect merely your personal distaste for the sources that are currently being used in the article. Are there some alternative sources that you would prefer were used? -- LWG ^talk 15:46, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

No. You see, that's the problem with writing about the historicity of Jesus in a global encyclopaedia. The sources ARE biased toward a Christian view. Using them adds bias to our article. We don't have to use them. We can avoid discussing the historicity of Jesus at all. Outside Christianity, Jesus, if he existed, is a very minor figure. He didn't do anything significant historically. We don't attempt to discuss the historicity of any other non-significant figure from 2000 years ago. It's only Christians who seem to want to do it, and I can't figure out why? HiLo48 (talk) 21:29, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

So, you feel that the question of whether Jesus existed or not is not very important, and doesn't need that lengthy of a discussion? I do agree that the way the article jumps right into "virtually all scholars agree" is rather jarring. Probably the article should just say "He was a Jewish teacher from Galilee..." and leave a discussion of the few dissenting scholars who doubt his existence for later in the article. -- LWG ^talk 23:07, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah. That's getting closer. "Virtually all scholars agree" certainly is a problem, because those scholars would not be impartial. It seems to be aggressively trying to prove something that doesn't need to be proven, as if with missionary zeal. (And I use the word missionary quite deliberately.) HiLo48 (talk) 23:15, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I think I see where you are coming from on this. However, I think that the reason such wording has been used is not because of some need to assert Jesus's existence, but because in the past people who strongly believe that Jesus did not exist have come in and complained about what they see as biased statement of fact that ignores their views. I think the other editors involved misidentified you as one of those, which would explain why you've had such a hard time understanding each other. -- LWG ^talk 23:46, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this some more, and I think that what might be making it hard for people to understand you is that you are presenting the issue as one of religion versus secularism, when it appears to be a matter of convoluted attempts to avoid controversy versus bluntly and unapologetically stating what the sources say. -- LWG ^talk 20:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I have an idea, we could move the "Virtually all ..." sentence to the "Historical views; Existence" subsection for now, and then we can seek consensus later once more editors show up. Pass a Method talk 19:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

ANI

I have made a complaint against you at ANI here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:HiLo48 --Surturz (talk) 06:03, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

You would, wouldn't you? HiLo48 (talk) 07:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

HiLo, I have closed the AN/I discussion as it's clear no admin wants to use a block here - it would be a blunt and unsophisticated way of dealing with the problem. However there is a problem. Edits like this as just one example are disruptive to the encyclopaedia and counterproductive to your case. You are wrong if you think that descending into insults and bad language is the only way to advance an argument. You say elsewhere on your talk page that you are a teacher; what would you say to a student who continually uses your own methods of dealing with a fellow-student who is annoying them? I will ask Pete to stay off your talk page and I'm asking you to find a different way of getting your point across. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 10:36, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I understand what you're trying to achieve with that post, but it simply doesn't reach the mark. I DON'T think that descending into insults and bad language is the ONLY way to advance an argument. I have never said that, and I make thousands of edits every year that don't contain such language. That particular diff was addressed to Pete, who I sincerely believe is a bad editor here. He persistently pushes a particular political POV, and his arguments leap all over the place. I still believe everything I wrote in that post, although I appreciate that some are offended by the form of wording. The swearing ALL involved only one other editor, Pete, with whom I do get extremely frustrated. Unfortunately, because he never does anything overtly naughty, he is hardly ever criticised. I find that incredibly frustrating. To me, it's a big problem for Wikipedia. Bad editing hiding behind seemingly polite behaviour. And I'm pretty sure he doesn't even realise what he's doing wrong. Oh well, I want to avoid him. Let's hope he stays away from here this time. HiLo48 (talk) 11:19, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I've asked him to stay away from your talk age and he has responded that he will do so. By the way, I didn't mean to imply that all your edits are insulting and descend into bad language; clearly they don't. But some of them do, and too often. You wouldn't accept that kind of behaviour, even occasionally, from an otherwise exemplary student in your class, would you? I'll leave it there for now and won't reply here further unless you ask me to, I don't want to drag this out unnecessarily. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 11:24, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, cool, but this is sad. I've just noticed that near the end of that AN/I, User:amadscientist said of me "The history shows that nearly all his contributions seem to be reverts that generally involve the limit of 3 reverts". That is so far from the truth it's laughable. Anyone who actually DOES look at my history will easily see that it's simply not the case. User:amadscientist obviously didn't look, or did look and chose to lie about it. How can an editor who seems to carry some authority here tell such lies with apparent impunity? Are there no consequences for such vindictiveness? And can I get that lie corrected? It's right there now on public display for everyone to read, in a closed thread. If I touched it, I know I would be condemned, but in the colloquial language my students DO use every day, it's complete and utter bullshit. HiLo48 (talk) 11:33, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

And here is Pete's way of no longer attempting to communicate with me. That's sad too. HiLo48 (talk) 07:27, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

An important message to Pete/Skyring

Pete, we cannot communicate effectively. So, please don't ever post here on my Talk page again. HiLo48 (talk) 07:40, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Good on you, and good luck!

Hope this gets you the kudos you deserve and if you keep it up, it should! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 23:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes. That should cut down the drama. A bit. It won't stop, though, until you stop telling people what's wrong with them. Telling someone they're a liar or a fool isn't swearing but it will consume 20 hours of your time and much more of the community's. It's an efficiency thing. :) --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:55, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's a shame about the lying though. It's blatant, and nothing is done about. I'll just avoid giving the liars the forum where they can let loose. HiLo48 (talk) 08:06, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Continuing this theme, are you telling me that you're going to try in future not to criticise your interlocutors, and just stick to the argument (which you're very good at, by the way, and the ad hominems hugely detract from the force of your pure argument)? Have I got that right? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:30, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes. It's my broad goal anyway. My last big blowup here was entirely directed at one other editor, who I regard as a very destructive contributor here. Because he is always polite, while pushing a distinct political POV in a very muddled way, some here think he is saintly, which is shallow, and sad. I'm trying to avoid him. Unfortunately, he is not avoiding me. He is responding to my posts on articles he normally ignores. It makes things difficult. I also realise that I use an approach here from outside Wikipedia that some here don't like. I have done formal negotiation training, and there one is taught to discover the real motivations and goals of people in a discussion. In political areas that can mean accepting the dogma or policy of a party on individual matters rather than coming to an independent conclusion, but if I suggest that, some here insist it's a personal attack. Ignoring it means we're not being honest with each other. That's what too much cosmetic niceness can lead to. HiLo48 (talk) 22:21, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Well, there is no easy way. But impugning the motives or competence of an editor on an article talk page is never helpful. An RfC on the editor you're referring to, making a clear case they're tendentious and persistently adding biased content - if that's the case - is the only way to deal with civil POV-pushers, and it only works occasionally. It's hard. But it's the only way to deal with them. Simply accusing them of that on talk pages will get you nothing but trouble, and it makes it very difficult for the rest of us - as you point out - to determine who's the arse hole. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:41, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

It's a very unclear line between "impugning the motives or competence of an editor" and pointing out that an editor's edits are consistently and determinedly parroting the position of one political party, something we must not do here. HiLo48 (talk) 08:13, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I DON'T know if it's applicable here or not but I've always thought that the most destructive people on Wikipedia are those who are actually being really nasty while pretending to be nice and Wikipedian, and also knowing how to work the rule book to pursue their nastiness. That is why I have always respected HiLo48 even though we often disagree. I think I've seen that their goal is simply and only to improve the articles, and they say simply what they mean. (even if it's sometimes rougher language than I'd use). North8000 (talk) 12:27, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Hah. Most of the Americans I know and have met have said that they would love to visit Australia, if it wasn't so far away and so expensive to get to. We would love to see them too, but I'm sure many would be shocked by the language in many parts of the country. You ought to hear what I hear every day in my work environment! And many of the participants in such conversations have no other way of speaking. Nobody can rationally say it's uncivil. HiLo48 (talk) 20:00, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm with you, North8000; I don't doubt HiLo48's integrity, and I disagree with him often. To be clear, I'm not addressing "fuck" here, I'm addressing ad hominem on article talk pages. I'm not particularly concerned what he says elsewhere on the project, and he can say "fuck" as often as he likes on article talk pages, I'd just rather he didn't swear at people or impugn their motives or competency on article talk pages - it diminishes the quality of our work on those pages: rational argument. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 20:16, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Interesting perspective. You see, the most recent incident all started with a particular editor refusing to discuss his repeated deletion of long established, well sourced content from an article. This editor is very strongly driven politically, and the edit matched his POV. I took the matter to the Talk page. I was angry. I used the f word. And THAT was by far the biggest problem to many here. They didn't care that we had a POV pushing editor behaving abominably. All that bothered them was the f word. But, the matter had been brought to the Talk page, BY ME, not by the POV pushing editor! And using the f word got the attention the problem deserved. Please don't respond that it would have all been better without the f word. It would all have been MUCH better without our POV pushing editor, and his POV pushing has been going on for years, with no consequences. And I'm sorry, but I still see little wrong with impugning the motives and competency of such people who are damaging Wikipedia. And then we had the AN/I case, where other bigots decided to tell blatant lies about me, because they don't like my swearing. Hmmmmm. HiLo48 (talk) 02:18, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I just noticed this response. I'm just saying, keep the ad hominem off the article talk page. Feel free to impugn their character and competency elsewhere. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

We MUST have the right to highlight incompetency when it's present. It's a real issue, particularly on political and religious topics. (We all have the right to vote and worship, but not all voters and religious folk are capable of participating rationally here.) What you describe as impugning the character of others might also be described as calling out dishonest, but very polite, POV pushing. HiLo48 (talk) 09:42, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

You don't have to do it on the article talk page, though. You can make a case and have it wallow and fail at ANI for weeks, instead. I guess you're right. There's no point in banishing ad hominem from article talk pages until we have an efficient means of dealing with tendentious and incompetent editing on wikispace. Sigh. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:03, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, I'm doing my best to avoid aggressive confrontation out there these days, not really because it's the right thing to do, but because it brings out such unethical, dishonest, corrupt and just plain nasty behaviour in others. HiLo48 (talk) 10:15, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I hope you'll get your reward for this HiLo and that it will also turn out to be the most effective thing to do. Confronting people aggressively is likely to make them counterattack, in my experience, just as you describe. So I tend to be as polite as possible - not because I'll necessarily persuade my opponent, but because it makes it more likely that unpersuaded neutrals will see my side of the argument. I do, personally, also think that avoiding aggressive confrontation is the "right thing to do" but you don't have to buy that as long as the strategy continues working for you! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 11:10, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:AN thread which partially relates to you

There's no need at all for you to comment and you're not directly named, but you should be aware of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#NOINDEX-ing of evidence page. Nick-D (talk) 22:59, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Nick-D. I was aware that Pete/Skyring had created more problems and confusion while creating his dossier on how evil I am. I won't say anything. He's attracting enough attention as it is. HiLo48 (talk) 23:04, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

October 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would ask that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Talk:Hurricane Sandy. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. The tone in your comment about the verifiability of James Cisco coming up with "Frankenstorm" was 1) unhelpful (and exactly what I was trying to avoid when I started that specific discussion); 2) unnecessary. A simple Google News search would have verified what I said. Also, a dead link does not make what was said a "falsehood". Inks.LWC (talk) 08:27, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

If YOU are trying to make a claim based on a link, YOU have to make sure it works. It ain't my job to support your story. HiLo48 (talk) 08:36, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say you had to support it. I just said you have to assume good faith, not call me a liar (which is what you're doing when you label my comment a "falsehood". Also, I'm not being abusive. If you continue mischaracterizing my comments and actions, I'll have to report this. Inks.LWC (talk) 08:38, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh, just drop it. I dropped the falsehood claim. (Or tried to. If any of it is still there, my apologies.) And I don't think you're understanding the complexity of my argument about the name being used in two different ways. HiLo48 (talk) 08:43, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not misunderstanding you're argument. But you're misunderstanding the meteorological fact that what Cisco was talking about has happened. Inks.LWC (talk) 08:45, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Just piss off back to the Article Talk page please. All you're doing now is making a confusing mess in two places. HiLo48 (talk) 08:47, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Questionaire

You questionaire is here: User:HiLo48/CERFC Nobody Ent 18:58, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

WTF? I didn't ask for a questionnaire? This pretty much proves the point I just tried to make. It's all far too complicated. HiLo48 (talk) 19:00, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

This [1]] appeared to be an attempt to begin the questions. If you'd prefer not to complete the survey, you can obviously WP:CSD the page User:HiLo48/CERFC, or if you prefer, I'll do that for you. Nobody Ent 19:27, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

You have missed the whole point of what I was attempting to post. I was pointing just how confusing the whole process is, became more confused, and now you are too, thereby proving that I am right. What an insane mess! HiLo48 (talk) 19:31, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

List of Common Misconceptions revert

I believe you are giving human intelligence WAY too much trust. Ask the next three people you see to name a synonym of "TNT". I guarantee none of them will respond "Tritone" of "Trinitrotoluene", and at least two will respond "dynamite". A common misconception is a myth, it is not invalid simply because the truth can be researched elsewhere. If this were true, the article would not exist. Tkbx (talk) 10:31, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Do you read Edit summaries? I made no judgement at all on whether people are confused on that point, or not. I tried to draw your attention to the bright yellow and pink READ THIS FIRST note that must have been visible to you when you added your content to the article. It provides details of the criteria an addition to that article must satisfy. HiLo48 (talk) 10:48, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for that! Sorry if I'm putting this in the wrong place by the way, I'm new here. So does that mean I have to find an article with what I want to put on a page and then I'm able to put it up? (Also, you may want to remove this after you see it, or move it, since I'm pretty sure I've put it in the wrong place). Lotus-Pastry (talk) 11:10, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry about having posted here. That's fine. But the best place for a discussion about what might go in the article is Talk:List of common misconceptions. You can click on "New section" at the top of that page to discuss your proposed addition. But do take note of the section near the top headed "Please read before proposing new entries". There is some pretty strong opposition among some editors to the article even existing, so following those guidelines is important. HiLo48 (talk) 21:39, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that

I have that feeling but I don't want to make accusations. I only hope that wiser eyes will start to intervene. Timeshift (talk) 02:29, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

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)

Thank you

Thank you for your explanation I will give the article a miss Google has it well covered Thank you again for your time. kind regards211.30.31.198 (talk) 01:18, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Wow, you're welcome of course, but I wish I knew what I did right. HiLo48 (talk) 02:13, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry

It was not a question, I'm sorry now, I realize it. Excuse me. Netwwork (talk) 10:45, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Just a thought

I wonder if you'd consider striking the part about the redneck. Believe me, I understand the frustration that led you to say it, but (1) it's really unfair—a negative stereotype and (2) likely will prove counterproductive. Those of us arguing with the ever-advancing rank of newbies and SPAs who populate that talk page really need our behavior to be beyond reproach, because when this all winds up at ANI—or, worse, Arbcom—everyone's slightest offhand remark will be scrutinized and every opportunity will be taken to spread the blame. Best to minimize that opportunity, imho. Rivertorch (talk) 21:39, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

To me, redneck is the most accurate term to describe the troll who started that thread. His username, and desire to attack anyone who is not a fan of guns, leave very few other options to consider. Suggest a better word, and I might go with it.

Furthermore, isn't it about time that a policy was established for that talk page that any further argument about the meaning of Homophobia will be killed on sight? It NEVER leads anywhere. HiLo48 (talk) 22:08, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Sigh. If you know of a way to enact such a policy, I hope you'll go right ahead. In the meantime, please just consider what I said. That your frustration (which I share) is 100% valid and understandable won't prevent a giant trout (or something far worse) from paying you a visit when this situation finally boils over and gets adjudicated. (Note: I said "when", not "if".) Yours has been an articulate voice on the page, and I'd really hate to see it squelched based on civility concerns. Anyhow, you know what? There actually are self-described rednecks who are out and proud, and others who are straight and anything but narrow, so the stereotype, like most stereotypes, falls apart when it gets down to the individual level. Fwiw. Rivertorch (talk) 08:46, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

November 2012

Please do not attack other editors, as you did to Talk:Homophobia. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. There is no evidence that MaximRecoil "hates gays" or is "part of the gun lobby". Please try to remain civil and refrain from trolling while discussing things on talk pages. Inks.LWC (talk) 22:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I haven't checked, but I assume you also criticised MaximRecoil on his Talk page for using "the PC crowd" in an obviously pejorative way in his initial post. Have you even asked him what he meant? These posts from people who don't like the word "homophobia" accurately describing their bigotry always include sweeping generalisations about those they see as their opponents. I am always willing to respond in kind. I tend to do it more brutally and more effectively, upsetting some precious folks here, but that's what they deserve. And as for no evidence of his redneckedness, LOL. I have yet to see a post of that style that comes from someone also willing to support, say, gay marriage for example. HiLo48 (talk) 03:27, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

haven't (yet) posted anything. It was trolling, but it wasn't an attack on an individual poster, so the attack warning didn't apply. Originally, I was going to post not to use the talk page as a forum, but that didn't quite apply either. I've looked through the warnings and couldn't think of anything to apply, but if you think of something I've missed, I had wanted to post somehing. I've just gone ahead and put a manual warning to remain civil. Inks.LWC (talk) 21:49, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

White Stolen Generations

Hi you seem to have removed my edit saying it is also known as the "White Stolen Generations" on the basis that there is no citation, if you look at the references you will see that many of these talk about the White Stolen Generations, please do not do this unless you have evidence thankyou.--Collingwood26 (talk) 01:31, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Have you read my comments on the Talk page? That article is one of the most inaccurate on Wikipedia. How about calling the adopted kids "The kids unmarried teenage mothers' parents desperately wanted to give away and hide"? That was the truth of it. HiLo48 (talk) 03:31, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Wow I came on here ready to accept your apology and you come out saying something as insensitive as that!? I have no words to express how angry I am with what you just wrote there, yes some of the babies taken were from young teenage mothers, but most did not have any say in the matter. Some were tied down and watched as their newborn child was taken away into the care of the church, other mothers were told their children had died so as to get away with the illegal practice, and some mothers were even drugged. To paint 250 thousand mothers and say they wanted to throw their children away is not only wrong but just plain nasty, how do you live with yourself?--Collingwood26 (talk) 06:49, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

A misunderstanding or deliberate misrepresentation of what I wrote. And that's the problem with that whole article. Hearsay and modern stories have taken over from the awkward truth. Please have a look at Talk:Forced adoption in Australia#It's time for some honesty. There's an important article here. It's not a matter of me being insensitive. People have been avoiding the truth in recent years. I don't know what your involvement is in all this, or how old you are, but I was there. I'm in my 60s. Teenage girls who got pregnant in the 1960s were a massive embarrassment. Families disappeared the girls. Families WANTED the kids to be adopted. Maybe the unmarried mothers didn't, but THEIR parents did. And the rest of society did. Society wasn't ready for single mums. Don't blame anonymous authorities. Blame society of the time. You ask how I live with myself. I live by facing the truth. HiLo48 (talk) 06:59, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Starchild skull

Interesting: another but very similar IP did the same thing after your revert. It's a bit early for protection, but I'm keeping an eye on it. Drmies (talk) 04:11, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Exactly where DO these gullible people come from? HiLo48 (talk) 04:13, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Look, the History channel has shows about aliens and National Geographic has reality shows about tuna fishers. You reap what you sow. Drmies (talk) 04:22, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I looked at the history again; it's full of nonsensical IP edits. It also has a history of being protected, to which I just added three months. Drmies (talk) 04:57, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Excellent. HiLo48 (talk) 05:18, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Tecoma, Victoria McDonalds drama

Hi, I hope this is the correct way to post on someone's talk page. HiLo48, its good to meet you. I am having difficulties with the page 'Tecoma: Victoria at present. i dont understand your editing because you stated to me that I needed to use reputable referencing. I referenced all local media plus the websites of our local and state governments. There is (as you may have gathered) a lot of controversy in little Tecoma at present and I am keen to see it appropriately reported. I do not wish to delete others facts; however, many of the facts I have posted have been deleted. Is there some way I can give you the original two, referenced paragraphs I wrote, were presented prior to being attacked? cheersMsCathMary (talk) 08:00, 11 November 2012 MsCathMary (talk) 08:05, 11 November 2012 (UTC)) 08:00, 11 November 2012 (UTC)ps: Not all of what you removed was mine- if you check the page history you'll find others posting subjective statements on top of my original posts.MsCathMary (talk) 08:07, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

The problem I immediately saw was that more than half the article had come to be about the McDonalds drama. Tecoma is much more than that. I'm aware of the fight that's going on in the town, but we must remember that this is a global encyclopaedia. Single issues like this, while important locally at the time, must not dominate such an article. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. And any addition must be written from a neutral point of view. That can be difficult when you're heavily involved in one side of a battle. Any addition about the McDonalds issue must be no more than a paragraph, and written very carefully, maybe in the way you can imagine the ABC reporting on the matter. HiLo48 (talk) 08:17, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your response & clarification!. Yes, I'm involved in this battle :) I have a number of questions for you (if thats ok..)1. Is it appropriate then to include a link to ABC's 7.30 report from last Fri? 2. I was alerted to this page because a 'pro maccas' internet troll (looong history) had posted an inflammatory reference to a 'locally well received McDonalds'on the page, with derogatory references to the campaigners against the development. If this info is reposted, what do I/we do? 3. The 'No Maccas in the hills' campaign is building momentum whther the development goes ahead or not. It's linked to a number of other groups globally. In my sandbox I'm developing an article about the movement and its international links. Does that sound appropriate to you? 4. I'm assuming you're not from Tecoma as well? :D cheers MsCathMary (talk) 08:43, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

If unsourced content is added it can (and almost certainly now will) be deleted. That seems likely to apply to your troll's contributions. I'm not from Tecoma, but from not far away in Yarra Ranges, so I've seen a lot of the local media coverage. I'm not convinced that bringing your local battle to Wikipedia will help your cause all that much. HiLo48 (talk) 02:24, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Australian Christan Lobby

I notice that you are from Australia. You might be interested in looking over Australian Christian Lobby. Supporters are constantly attempting to whitewash the article, and right now, the article is protected again. It would help to have someone more familiar with the topic give some informed input. Thanks. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:21, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I've glanced at that article a few times lately and found it looking like an ugly mess with nasty edit warring going on. I suspect it would take a bit of time to get my head around the issues, but I'll see if I can get involved. HiLo48 (talk) 19:36, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the edit-warring is nasty, but things have improved a lot since I recently brought a whole lot of new eyes to the article. MrX has deleted most of the self-serving, self-published, self-promotional crap, and the whitewashers are outnumbered now. In any case, would appreciate anything you can do, and wouldn't blame you for not wanting to deal with this mess. Big thanks! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:49, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at WP:ANI regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User North8000 disruptive talk page editing at talk:Homophobia. Thank you. - MrX 19:50, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

RFC/U

You are the subject of a Request for Comment/User, listed here. In addition, the matter has been listed at WP:AN. This action was taken with the aim of helping you in your stated vow of improved behaviour, for which you are to be congratulated. For myself, I have specifically ruled out seeking any block or punishment. I hope that we can mend bridges and improve the wiki experience for you, me, and every other editor. Thank you. --Pete (talk) 15:50, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Hmmmm. My first thoughts? Does this count as a breach of my request above at 07:40, 15 October 2012 (UTC)? ;-) HiLo48 (talk) 17:01, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

My second thoughts? Given the massive quantity of material Pete has compiled there on my multitudinous sins and inherent evil nature, it would be pointless for me to try to respond to each piece of it. Also, given the appalling nature of the AN process, where anyone can write anything they like, including the biggest lies on earth, with no consequences, there is little point trying to discuss everybody else's comments (even the truthful and/or nice ones). I shall therefore choose to make no response there at all, unless absolutely forced to.

My position and attitude should be clear to anybody who reads this User Talk page, along with my User page, especially User:HiLo48#A non-swearing vow (Lying is safer).

I shall say no more. HiLo48 (talk) 23:36, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, I must say more. The two people running this show have noticed the above statement of my choice to not participate in that discussion. Neither has acknowledged my explanation , and Pete is playing amateur psychologist explaining to the world why I'm really doing it, based on his profound insights into my thinking. LOL. HiLo48 (talk) 06:19, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Hey, I just want to be sure you're aware of this. Rightly or wrongly, non-participation can pose risks. Rivertorch (talk) 06:44, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure that post was made in good faith, but why do I constantly have to deal with editors who give the impression that they have ignored most of what I have written? I'll also say that I can see no sensible single point of entry into that litany of alleged sins from editors who it's clear already despised my success in the past at showing their POV pushing. This is already an incredibly flawed process. HiLo48 (talk) 07:32, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I haven't looked into the substance of the complaint. Much of what I see on the RfC/U page suggests to me that there isn't much substance. In an ideal world, nonsubstantive or trifling complaints could be safely ignored, but this is Wikipedia, a project that routinely devours its best and its brightest. My impression of the Arbcom decision I linked was that another editor's decision not to formally respond to an RfC/U he considered frivolous may have played a significant part in his subsequent banning, and I didn't want to see that happen to you. That's all. Rivertorch (talk) 17:00, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Then stop ignoring the points I make (which you have just done again). HiLo48 (talk) 17:11, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if I seemed to be ignoring them. I wasn't, really—I was just trying to be helpful in one very limited way. But I sense I'm not being helpful, so I'll shut up now. Good luck! Rivertorch (talk) 18:54, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I was serious when I said "I can see no sensible single point of entry into that litany of alleged sins from editors who it's clear already despised my success in the past at showing their POV pushing." This process is a vindictive effort by editors who may or may not care about my swearing, but would really like to stop me interfering with their POV pushing. If other editors really care, they could tackle the problem of those editors. HiLo48 (talk) 19:39, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Would you please agree to stop swearing (including "bull shit") on article talk pages, and cut back on the "you would say that because you're a one-eyed Liberal/Christian/whatever" on article talk pages? If you do that it will (1) please me, and I'll nominate you for a Wikipedia t-shirt (2) shut your critics up and stop this perpetual drama (3) clear the atmosphere on article talk pages and leave room for good rhetoric - what article talk pages are for. Ad hominem is a logical fallacy, it is a classic example of poor rhetoric, up there with argumentum ad verecundiam. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:49, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

In my work (high school teacher these days, but several other roles before that) I am expected to go a lot deeper than simply the words said when involved in a negotiation. It works at its best when both parties aim for a level of metacognition, working out why they and others in a discussion are saying and doing what they are doing. It's obvious that the instigator of this action, Pete, has two major obsessions. Firstly, he concentrates almost entirely on topics to do with Australian politics. (He lives in the county's political capital.) It's not healthy to have such a arrow perspective here at the best of times. His editing involves aggressively pushing a POV that is very anti-union/Labor/Julia Gillard, and pro-the Liberal Party, and Alan Jones and Andrew Bolt, two blatantly right wing commentators he is persistently trying to prove are doing a great job for the country. This obsession singly motivates his editing here, much of which I see as unacceptable. Pete simply IS a Liberal whatever, and I don't think he realises it. That this is what almost exclusively motivates him SHOULD be mentioned. He isn't interested in creating a balanced encyclopaedia. If that matter cannot be discussed, Wikipedia is formally choosing to follow a very low intellectual level of discussion.

His second obsession? Me. Just look at the time and effort he has put into proving my evil nature in this process! The truth is that I have repeatedly called him out on edits ultimately unsuccessfully pushing his first obsession in articles here. I have done it quite brutally at times (even without swearing), and it annoys the crap out of him.

His deputy on this action, Surturz, pushes exactly the same Australian political POV as Pete. That anything about me from those two could be considered objective and balanced in any way at all is very sad. The one other early loud voice here, Andromedean, is another almost single issue editor, who encountered my successful opposition to his rabid POV pushing too. The whole point of what I'm writing here is that silencing me would make the POV pushing of these three editors so much easier. Even allowing this process to be pushed by editors who find me such a nuisance to their unbalanced goals here is a massive blot on Wikipedia.

Summing that up, to properly discuss things in depth, we all need to be willing to face and be faced with out fundamental biases. Without it Wikipedia is promoting a very low level of discussion.

As for swearing, no problems. I have stopped. And it's revealing that my accusers don't seem to have noticed. I haven't stopped because of demands from the puritans. It's for the reasons outlined above and on my User page.

In closing, Pete talks utter garbage about changing the way I feel in my heart. This is a formal encyclopaedia. We don't write from the heart. We write balanced, due, well sourced factual material (or at least we should - he doesn't) and feelings in our hearts should have nothing to do with what we write here. Sadly, he sees no other way of behaving. I cannot respect a process that is so politically motivated and unbalanced. HiLo48 (talk) 17:08, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I conceded higher up the page that, while the dispute resolution process here is so inadequate in dealing with civil point-of-view pushing, it is appropriate to point out tendentious editing on article talk pages - for the benefit of others who may not be aware of what they're witnessing. I'm asking you to reduce it to that. You do more than that. You rather harp on about it.

I see a lot of sympathy for you at the RfC and think that a commitment to reducing the ad hominem, on top of no more swearing, will please your peers, improve the quality of your rhetoric and turn off the drama. (Back to bed.) --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)--Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Ad hominem is a term I'm not really familiar with. I have only ever seen it used here. If it means pointing out what I wrote in the previous post, it's very sad. To not be able to point out the truth about my accusers here would be doing Wikipedia a grave disservice. Is something ad hominem if it's true? HiLo48 (talk) 19:42, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

It's a logical fallacy that goes back at least to Aristotle's Sophistic Refutations, in which he categorises various rhetorical techniques. From Encyclopedia Britannica:

Special cases of irrelevant conclusion* are presented by the so-called fallacies of relevance. These include ( a) the argument ad hominem (speaking “against the man” rather than to the issue), in which the premises may only make a personal attack on a person who holds some thesis, instead of offering grounds showing why what he says is false, ( b) the argument ad populum (an appeal “to the people”), which, instead of offering logical reasons, appeals to such popular attitudes as the dislike of injustice, ( c) the argument ad misericordiam (an appeal “to pity”), as when a trial lawyer, rather than arguing for his client's innocence, tries to move the jury to sympathy for him, (d) the argument ad verecundiam (an appeal “to awe”), which seeks to secure acceptance of the conclusion on the grounds of its endorsement by persons whose views are held in general respect, ( e) the argument ad ignorantiam (an appeal “to ignorance”), which argues that something (e.g., extrasensory perception) is so since no one has shown that it is not so, and (f) the argument ad baculum (an appeal “to force”), which rests on a threatened or implied use of force to induce acceptance of its conclusion.

* "Irrelevant conclusion" is one of his categories.

It gets misused here as a synonym for personal insult. An insult is ad hominem only if it is used to refute an argument, and ad hominem doesn't necessarily involve an insult. It is a very specific technical term in the field of rhetoric (another term that is badly misunderstood here). For an enterprise that depends on the quality of argument, we're woefully ignorant of best practice in argument, or even its most basic principles, to our great loss. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:20, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I can only agree very strongly with that last comment of yours. HiLo48 (talk) 04:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

And now, just as I expected, the lies have begun. (See my concerns at User:HiLo48#A non-swearing vow (Lying is safer).) At least four by my count. There's bound to be more to come. No way I can defend myself against that. And the culprits will suffer no consequences. The bigots sure have the system in their favour here. HiLo48 (talk) 07:11, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

The latest? "My main problem is his attempt to sway opinion by force of numbers..." What? How can I, a single editor, sway opinion by force of numbers? LOL. Irrational, incompetent editors have free reign too. HiLo48 (talk) 17:50, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

And now we have one of those conservative American Christians, whose behaviour I cannot stand when they try to impose their values on the rest of the world, having a big whinge and attacking me. His story? He doesn't mention his Christianity here. Misses the point entirely. There are many times when I wonder about the logical ability of other editors here. But I guess religious nutters don't live by logic anyway. (Oh, and he bignotes himself by mentioning that he's an administrator. Sad that his ego needs that.) HiLo48 (talk) 09:14, 22 November 2012 (UTC)