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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Proposed closure of RfC/U

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A barnstar for you!

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

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

	Australian Wikimedian Recognition (AWR)
	Thank you for your contributions on English Wikipedia that have helped improve Australian related content. :D It is very much appreciated. :D Enjoy your Australia Day and please continue your good work! Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome

Hi there HiLo48 - thanks for the welcome. I do a lot of writing, research, editing in my day job, and I have background in a lot of topics spanning media, law, policy, internet and Asia etc. so in some ways I am interested in being a more active editor here. The next few months are pretty busy, though, so I will hold off volunteering just yet. Thanks for the reminder about using four tildes etc. I have got the hang of it now. NotherAussie (talk) 08:34, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Cool. Articles like that one yesterday about Wikipedia can be a real problem. They attract all sorts of emotionally involved, single issue newcomers, often with no idea of how Wikipedia works, throwing abuse around and generally being unhelpful. It's great that at least one new positively inclined editor has emerged from the drama. My main suggestion to you now is to have a look around. Check out some other articles in your areas of interest. You're bound to find some mistakes that need fixing (I note you've already tackled a couple), and doing so will do a lot to improve your credibility here. Good luck and keep up the good work. HiLo48 (talk) 20:19, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

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

A barnstar for you!

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

Useful source for Sport in Australia and footy people

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

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

A barnstar for you!

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

Aussie rules as AFL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You can respond here. I am watching here.

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

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

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

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

A barnstar for you!

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

Football

(are you aware that the FC bit doesn't actually stand for anything?)

In response to that, the F.C. stands for Football Club. Melbourne Victory Football Club. It very much stands for something.

Anyway, I would estimate about 90% of Victorian football (soccer) clubs (don't know about other states) are FC's and not SC's by the way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Futbol vic (talk • contribs) 09:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Nope. The name of the club is Melbourne Victory FC, not Melbourne Victory Football Club. Check the club's website. You'll be very hard pressed to find any part that says Football Club. (Often they leave off the FC bit too. It's not helpful.) The club is registered with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, the national body that controls these things, as Melbourne Victory FC.

And you're simply wrong about 90% of round ball clubs being named football clubs. Maybe you could list some for me. (Victory isn't one of them.) The reason is obvious. I explained why in my post to you. Believe what you want, but it's always better in the long run to know the real truth. HiLo48 (talk) 10:09, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

And what does FC stand for? Football club. Do you really want me to list? South Melbourne FC, Oakleigh Cannons FC, Hume City FC, Fawkner FC, Moreland FC, and I can go on and on and on.

Your response makes me think you rarely (if ever) watch football, otherwise you would know that Melbourne Victory Football Club is quite commonly used, especially when talking about the Corporate and Business side of the game. Futbol vic (talk) 10:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I said when I first posted on your Talk page that I wished I could understand your thinking. Well, I Still do. I have clearly demonstrated that you are wrong about the name, yet you insist that I'm wrong. It's pointless continuing that discussion. Oh, and five FCs, not Football Clubs, proves absolutely nothing. Wikipedia demands facts, not what your impression is or what you want things to be. Your user name tells us that you're a fan of the game. With a name like that you need to represent the game well and be talking the truth. HiLo48 (talk) 10:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Impression of things hmm? Your interpretation of whether soccer is the right term is purely based on your lack of knowledge on the subject.

Does teaching Phys Ed give me any knowledge? Please visit any school in Victoria and tell me what they call the game? I'll tell you now to save you time. Schools have a football team, being Australian Football, and a Soccer team. It wouldn't work any other way. HiLo48 (talk) 06:05, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

FC's not Football Clubs FFS. Do you not understand that FC stands for Football Club? Whether or not officially the Club is registered as South Melbourne FC or South Melbourne Football Club (for example) does not matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Futbol vic (talk • contribs) 05:58, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes it does. Wikipedia goes by what reliable sources tell us. ASIC tops the bill on that front. HiLo48 (talk) 06:05, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and look at the A League home page, including the ladder. Lots of FCs. No Football Clubs. (In fact, looking at that ladder, it looks like the teams that leave off both FC and Football do the best!) HiLo48 (talk) 06:10, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Global warming

I was basing my edit on the fact that 97% of climate scientists agree humans are causing global warming. But since that's already explained later in the article, I made a mistake and shouldn't have changed the number. Daren420c (talk) 20:08, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Cool. It seemed an odd figure. Wouldn't argue with it. It just seemed remarkably precise. But most importantly of all for Wikipedia, if we change article content, we need a new WP:RS source reflecting that change. HiLo48 (talk) 22:59, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Greetings

Hello HiLo48. I hope you believe that I am sorry for the times when I wrongly created tension between us. I certainly enjoy working with you, I respect that our views are different at times; but really not so far apart. SJ's is a good guy too; really. I hope you will not remember me badly, or dislike my interactions all together. My76Strat (talk) 21:38, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

There's no problems on this front. HiLo48 (talk) 23:06, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

While you were out...

File:Message pad with pen.jpg	While you were out...
	An IP struck and left you an unpleasant message. Reverted it and warned the IP not to do it again I did. This is to let you know. Enjoy your day ツ Jenova20 (email) 12:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

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

AN/I notification

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread, regarding 153.161.195.137, is here. Thank you. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 12:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I wish I could understand what that was all about. HiLo48 (talk) 18:27, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

What what was all about? 153's comment? The AN/I? --76.189.109.155 (talk) 19:32, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I know that part of it is to do with some editors not liking it when I firmly stand by WP:BLP and throw in a bit of "Innocent until proven guilty". I'm quite used to being abused over that. I gather that some thought it went too far. I've been very busy in my other life off Wikipedia this week, and haven't been paying close attention. HiLo48 (talk) 22:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed your recent edit to Boy Scouts of America membership controversies does not have an edit summary. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history. Thanks! Federales (talk) 03:36, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Apologies for that. I'm a big fan of Edit summaries, but I mistakenly hit the Rollback button instead of Undo. Felt guilty straight away. HiLo48 (talk) 03:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Naughty boy HiLo, should have put an edit summary in. What are we to do with you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.32.20.68 (talk) 07:26, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Whatever is done to me it cannot be as serious a punishment as that reserved for editors who don't sign their posts ;P HiLo48 (talk) 07:29, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

A Suggestion

Hello HiLo48. Rather than taking the 'source police' approach and constantly reverting other user's good-faith contributions to Wikipedia when the information source is omitted (as you did here), why not quickly check the information's validity, add a source yourself and advise the contributor? This way both the contributor and future readers of the article benefit from the change 210.50.84.112 (talk) 11:09, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

One reason for not working harder on that one is that the grammar and punctuation were poor as well. Three capital letters missing, and you don't "open" a bike race. While I welcome new editors, I am truly hesitant about encouraging editors who cannot write well. I am not an English teacher. Nor should the rest of us have to be. HiLo48 (talk)

When I wrote the above, I didn't realise that you had simply re-added the poorly written sentence. Apparently you don't realise how poorly it is written either. That's really sad. HiLo48 (talk) 12:24, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello HiLo48, For what it's worth I did not manually re-add the sentence (albeit poorly written), rather I simply undid the revert taking it back to the previous contributor's version and added a link to the source. Not that I need to explain this though, given your extensive experience reverting and undoing others work. Either way I guess that's "sad". Have a great day. 210.50.84.112 (talk) 12:48, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Please stop rewriting it inaccurately. You are now causing me extra work also. And it is 2014 according to my research, not 2013. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 13:17, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Jenova. Didn't pick that up. That means that the original contribution of 10 words had five errors in it, and was unsourced. And I'm condemned for removing it! Go figure. Wikipedia has a policy requiring contributors to be competent. I regard it as a very important policy. HiLo48 (talk) 20:55, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

And it should be compulsory to read it...ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 21:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:TPS with respect 210.50.84.112, it is your responsibility to add accurate information with a reliable source. It is not the responsibility of other editors to follow you around, correct your errors and find cites for you. Editors are allowed to remove un-cited information without having to do a search on it, or notifying the contributor. Five errors in ten words is quite a bad level of editing.Martin451 (talk) 21:42, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Unknowingly

If you decide that you need to remove either "allegedly" or "unknowingly" or anything similar on Eddie McGuire with reference to the minor who started the issue, could you let me know and we will take it further with some larger group. I don't support the direct allegation that the girl knowingly did what is stated without a qualifier based on the available sources. It is not just McGuire that is saying that she didn't know what she did, as there are other sources for that statement.

I don't understand what you mean by "we can't read minds", as the words are sourced out of a secondary source, so keeping on reverting the change using that logic isn't helping the discussion.

Thanks,

Ansell 06:37, 31 May 2013 (UTC)