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:

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)[reply]

Further

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

Reviewer and rollback

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

For keeping the baddies at bay...

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

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

Humor at Protected Pages

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

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

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

Thanks for information

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

Compliments on your sang froid

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

Nice Koekjes

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

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

Some words I'm working on

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

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

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

Thank you

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

I support you

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

A kitten for you!

For your sport work. :)

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

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

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

A barnstar for you!

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

Barnstar

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

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

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

In this issue:

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

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

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

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

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

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

View the full newsletter

Background

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

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

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

Progress so far

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

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

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

Proposed changes

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please share your thoughts at the RfC.

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

I have to record this before it gets buried

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

I think it's a gem.

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

A barnstar for you!

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

Proposed closure of RfC/U

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A barnstar for you!

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

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

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

A barnstar for you!

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

A barnstar for you!

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

Useful source for Sport in Australia and footy people

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

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

A barnstar for you!

The Resilient Barnstar

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

Aussie rules as AFL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You can respond here. I am watching here.

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

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

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

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

A barnstar for you!

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

While you were out...

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

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

Items of cultural significance in Australia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A beer for you!

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

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

Precious

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

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

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

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

Someone has been editing as LoHi48

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

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

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

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

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

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

Request for input in drafting potential guidelines

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

Sorry For Being A F%^kup

Hi HiLo48,

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

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

ITN

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

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

What the hell is wrong with me?

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

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

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

Well played

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

Martin Flanagan

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

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

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

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

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

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

Western Sydney Wanderers FC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Football in Australia

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

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

Commendable restraint

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My outburst

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

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

Barnstar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Both these people were very well known to Australians.

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

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

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

HiLo48 comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I get it now =D

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your trump card

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion at ANI

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edit summary

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

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

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

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

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

October 2013

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I appreciate that you care about Wikipedia. Unfortunately, we are resource limited in many ways, and administrators are one of them. The active admin:editor ratio is 635:120,786 (about 1:200). So the in depth, looking deep into background causes of behavioral disputes I see you advocating for is rarely going to happen. It's not true that "AN/I doesn't work" anymore than it's true "AN/I does work" ... it's in large part a matter of framing and small part serendipity. If an editor opens a thread that has few words, many diffs, and the diffs are righteous they're likely to get a reasonably good response.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Auntie Bonita, AO

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interaction ban between Pete and me - Thank you

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unblock

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Monty Python

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussions

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

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

A kitten for you!

Thank you.

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

Comment layout

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

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

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

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

Sorry

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A barnstar for you!

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

A Barnstar for you

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Once upon a time - the moral of the story

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

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

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

Your draft submission Museum of Australian Democracy at Eureka was accepted

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

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

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

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

Barnstar

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

IBAN

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vandalism

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

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

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

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

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

Word to the wise

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Justin Bieber RfC

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

I'm depressed. And confused.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Victoria (Australia) article

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

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

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

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

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

Do you know.......

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article assistance

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

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

Beards/computing

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

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

Australian sport naming rules

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HiLo48 here's what you need to know:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A cup of coffee for you!

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

Pop over when you get a chance

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

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

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

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

Hey man, keep your cool

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RfC

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

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

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

Please don't

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

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

WSG

Why do you keep reverting my edit even though I have done what you asked?--Empire of War (talk) 07:21, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I told you in an edit summary. You cannot use one use of an expression by a paid opinion writer in that way. HiLo48 (talk) 07:23, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I see your point, is this enough links then? Forced adoption in Australia --Empire of War (talk) 08:32, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted all the references you inserted as a great string in the lead. If the references are required (they are not "links") they should be used to provide sources for material in the body of the article. The lead is supposed to be just a summary of content in the main part of the article and should never have material not contained elsewhere in the article. - Nick Thorne ^talk 09:09, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

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

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

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

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

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

Request reason:

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

Accept reason:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your request

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

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

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

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

Apologies

My apologies Mr HiLo, perhaps we got off on the wrong foot? It seems you think I was vandalising the page,etc. No certainly don't care for vandalism or trolling, I'm here to contribute. Is there anything about my previous edit on Forced adoption in Australia that you don't like?--Empire of War (talk) 23:52, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a question of liking your edits. Your edits ignore the way things are done here and then you embarked on an edit war to protect your changes instead of engaging in meaningful discussion on the talk page. The usual process here is Bold Revert Discuss. You were bold with your first edit but once it had been reverted (the very first time) you should then have taken the issue to the article talk page to discuss your edit and gain a consensus (or not) for the change. During that discussion you might well learn why your edit is inappropriate or how it might be better made or where it should be within the article. Specifically the article lead should never introduce new information, it should be nothing more than a summary of the overall article, pointing out the salient features. There should not be references in the lead, what you continued to incorrectly call "link" (links are quite different things on Wikipedia), where references are required is in the main body of the article where the information is formally presented. If something needs a reference in the lead, it should not be there - it should be moved to the appropriate part of the article body and then, if it is important enough to the article, mention can be made of it in the lead.

You appear to be new to Wikipedia and I realise that learning all the arcane ways of this place can be a daunting task, but you really should not ignore the advice given to you by other editors. I hope you have learnt from your experience and can become a productive editor. Put this behind you and next time somebody takes issue with one of your edits - it happens to all of us from time to time - listen to what the other editor is saying. Follow policy, especially Wikipedia's verification, reliable sources and no original research policies and you won;t go far wrong.

Okay, so then you don't have a problem with my edit?--Empire of War (talk) 02:35, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that, go back and re-read my post. Oh, and please learn to properly indent - see talk page guidelines. - Nick Thorne ^talk 03:37, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation Nick. It's good. And EoW, thanks for the apology. Nick's concerns about your edits closely matched mine. I do, however, have other concerns with that whole topic. I am old enough to have been around when the adoptions in question were happening. My perspective is somewhat different from the way it is all being presented today, and it does bother me to see history re-written according to the different values of a different time. The governments/hospitals/institutions were not taking babies away against peoples will. They were fulfilling the will of at least the parents of the unmarried teenage mothers, and the expectations of the rest of society. There was no way a single teenage mother could survive against the economic and social pressures of the time. Most often, the teenage mothers just went along with the whole process because everybody, and I do mean everybody, including the mothers, saw it as the right thing to do at the time. Then along came the pill, and legal abortion, and single mother's pensions, and everything changed. It was a very different time. HiLo48 (talk) 05:22, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"my perspective is somewhat different", no offense HiLo but your perspective does not matter, such POV pushing should not occur on Wiki. I have newspaper articles with mothers who specifically use the term "stolen" to describe what happened. It is similiar to the Aboriginal Stolen Generations, and I doubt you think that didn't happen as well? Official terms were of course mostly "Forced Adoption", meaning the mother didn't have a choice it was going to be taken from her regardless. The Australian Government Department of Families released a study which includes the phrase "White Stolen Generation", just to give you an example that the Australian Government has recognised the need to sometimes label it as this to distinguish it from the Aboriginal Stolen Generations.

And finally if you go onto the Stolen Generations page at Section 11.2 there is description of the White Stolen Generations which directly leads to this page Forced adoption in Australia. Hope you agree.--Empire of War (talk) 07:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't accuse me of pushing a POV. I am telling you the truth. Do you not want to know it? HiLo48 (talk) 07:17, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And in response to you Nick, I didn't realise it was you. Thought it was HiLo since you didn't put your signature at the end of that para. If you don't want a "reference" in the opening para, then you shouldn't expect one in the body. The phrase White Stolen Generation is just that, a phrase, another word which some people use to describe what happened. EXAMPLE: In the article Yellowtail scad it has several "also known as the, etc, etc", but it doesn't have any references in the heading for these nor are there any references in the body for these. Because its just another word to describe the event or object. Do you understand now?--Empire of War (talk) 07:23, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EoW - What Nick told you is right. We don't use sourcing in the lead of articles. But all material in the lead must come from elsewhere in the article, where it must be sourced. That other articles breach this policy proves nothing. HiLo48 (talk) 07:32, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not accusing you of POV pushing, I'm saying it isn't acceptable to push a view without at least having any evidence to back it up. At least I have references, I've yet to see your references saying "Forced Adoption never took place".--Empire of War (talk) 07:26, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You said "your perspective does not matter, such POV pushing should not occur on Wiki." I cannot read that as anything but an accusation of POV pushing. Anyway, I'm not pushing a view. I'm relating the truth. Unfortunately, modern politics has re-factored the truth. But I'd like to think that some people would still be interested in it. I was there. I know what happened. I recall the trauma, horror and shame within families of having a pregnant teenage daughter. Do you? HiLo48 (talk) 07:32, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to take a guess and say your much older than myself, and apologies if you think Im accusing you of POV pushing. I'm saying peoples perspectives on what happened shouldn't show in the article. I of course know the culture back then was vastly different than it is today, and I do realise having a child outside of marriage was very taboo back then. Some mothers may have eagerly wanted their children removed as much as some women today are eager to get an abortion. But what of those women who were forced to surrender the child? There are documented cases of women being drugged, tied to beds, and to never see their children again. Of course like you said before, not all had that experience. But many did, and if there wasn't such an outcry then the state and federal governments would never have apologised.--Empire of War (talk) 07:38, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they would. It's worth votes. HiLo48 (talk) 07:40, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HiLo....You can't say that -_- --Empire of War (talk) 07:46, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. I sure can. And did. And would again if asked. Why can't I say it? HiLo48 (talk) 07:49, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't a huge issue the electorates were concerned with, therefore I doubt very much it would have bought many votes. I wouldn't say it because it is "perspective pushing", theres no evidence to say that apologised to buy votes although its easy to think that.--Empire of War (talk) 07:58, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lies

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

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

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

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

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

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

Adelaide Oval

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

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

Really?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dates

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

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

The Boat Race nomination at WP:ITN/R

Since you participated in the nomination of The 160th Boat Race at WP:ITNC, I am writing to let you know that you might like to participate in the following discussion at WP:ITN/R. 86.170.98.9 (talk) 23:39, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your consensus on Obama is being stated.

Hello HiLo48; Your consensus for section blanking at the "Obama" page for Legacy section blanking is being stated there, could you glance at this. FelixRosch (talk) 15:29, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment on DRN (2014 Formula One season)

Do you really think that was helpful? The dispute is already on the verge of being handed as a packaged unit over to AN* as a conduct dispute. Hasteur (talk) 23:27, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What's unhelpful about it? It's important to get editors who are arguing over language to think about what they're really saying. HiLo48 (talk) 23:30, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ITN nomination

On 15 April 2014, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Brian Harradine, which you recently nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.

--331dot (talk) 12:50, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Geelong Collingwood

Can you improve the section then, and put some references into it? I've never really heard of a Geelong vs Collingwood rivalry, and all I see is a list of results with an unspoken implication that I'm supposed to conclude a rivalry exists. Aspirex (talk) 08:45, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's been there a long time and is a shitload more real than the artificial, marketing driven "rivalries", such as those between the two Sydney teams and Sydney Vs Brisbane. That article is full of marketing crap. It's probably mostly rubbish actually. HiLo48 (talk) 08:49, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly note

HiLo48, you're an experienced editor and I respect your work. I think it would be helpful to comment on the content and not the editor (e.g., this edit [6] "But I doubt that's an aspect ..."), particularly on an article subject to sanctions. I'll add two thoughts:

It is hard sometimes to WP:AGF with new editors and/or those that charge into contentious areas with what seem like a non-neutral POV.
Sometimes a POV editor can be converted into a neutral one with consistent comments on content vs. policy. I know, from experience, this doesn't often work, but in those cases it is the non-neutral POV editors that end up being sanctioned. I also know from experience that WP:EW and commenting on those editors is never effective.

Best regards, JoeSperrazza (talk) 14:53, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What was wrong with that edit? It's 100% true. Obama being black is obviously a massively divisive issue in the US. HiLo48 (talk) 22:02, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This part: "But I doubt that's an aspect Tbschemer would want to emphasise." That's not the first comment you've made about the editor Tbschemer. Comment on his edits, not the editor. Thanks. JoeSperrazza (talk) 23:02, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come off it! Tbschemer has been making sweeping attacks on editors he disagrees with from the beginning of that discussion. My comment was far more positive about him than most of what he has said about others. In making comment on Obama's colour I was trying to move the conversation away from his attacks on every other editor there. Have you had a go at him for his editing style? HiLo48 (talk) 23:56, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

You should be aware of a discussion about you on ANI. Calidum 00:56, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A typical attempt from the religiously righteous to silence an effective critic. I wonder what Jesus would have thought of it all. HiLo48 (talk) 01:12, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're not that effective of a critic.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:50, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, what an impressive, thoughtful, profound response. HiLo48 (talk) 20:44, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We're not here to right great wrongs.--Maleko Mela (talk) 22:44, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still wondering why we're here. It keeps my mind active. HiLo48 (talk) 22:51, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I for one started on Wikipedia to edit horror movie articles and never really got around to it as there were so many other topics that interested me more.--Maleko Mela (talk) 23:57, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A note...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Great comments. I appreciate that.

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

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

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

Austrailian football player

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A barnstar for you!

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

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

Removing info from "Priscilla, Queen of the Desert" page

Hello, yesterday I added information about the score for the Australian movie "Priscilla, Queen of the Desert" in the Wikipedia page, but it was removed by you. I don't understand why or what went wrong. What should I do to do it properly and put that information there?

Greetings Takeh (talk) 19:40, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The primary problem was that the material was not sourced. In addition, it wasn't obvious what the additional album actually had to do with the film. It seemed that it may have been undue. HiLo48 (talk) 22:05, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, but it was obvious the album has EVERYTHING to do with the film. As I quoted, the album holds original compositions created SPECIFICALLY for the movie by composer Guy Gross, as credited in the movie ending titles (if you have seen the movie, you surely would notice the original score and the credits) and that is why the album is called "Priscilla Companion: dialogue FROM THE FILM & ORIGINAL MUSIC SCORE". The soundtrack actually listed on the Wikipedia page is only the "featured songs" version of the whole soundtrack. So my contribution is completely accurate and true about the album of the original music score of the movie.

I suppose then, that adding the source as the listing the "ending titles in the movie", the composer's page, the music publisher catalog number and the ID number in Libraries Australia is enough to prevent the info to be taken again.

Greetings, Takeh (talk) 18:52, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Care to comment?

Here? Timeshift (talk) 07:52, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Assume good faith

The Wikipedia guideline Assume good faith begins:

Assuming good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. It is the assumption that editors' edits and comments are made in good faith. Most people try to help the project, not hurt it. If this were untrue, a project like Wikipedia would be doomed from the beginning. This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary (vandalism). Assuming good faith does not prohibit discussion and criticism. Rather, editors should not attribute the actions being criticized to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice.

Your discussion under the heading Edits made in ignorance or in bad faith indicates that you have not assumed good faith on the part of User:Footwiks. Changing "Melbourne City FC" to "Melbourne City Football Club" is clearly not vandalism. Subsequent discussion has shown that Footwiks has non-trivial reasons supporting the changes you dispute. Whether you agree with those reasons or not, and whether the consensus ultimately agrees with those changes or not, you have demonstrated bad faith by labelling them as "made in ignorance or in bad faith" without asking for reasons first. It would have been better to open the discussion by querying the changes and setting out your position to open a dialogue without using such epithets, and perhaps then the discussion might have been a little more level-headed.

It is a pity to see this from such a prolific editor. —sroc 💬 01:47, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you're right about the bad faith comments. The problem is that there HAS been an awful lot of bad faith editing on the matters of the naming of the sport and of soccer clubs in Australia, to the extent that several editors now have long term blocks. I was taken to AN/I by some of them before they disappeared, with no guilt found on my part, but an awful lot of pain experienced. I might be displaying the symptoms of too much time in that war zone. I will try harder. (Would it be appropriate to remove that wording from the thread title now?) However, I won't apologise for the ignorance comment. The situation regarding the relevant names of soccer clubs in Australia is very complex. Have you looked at the discussions at and preceding Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Football in Australia)#Another RfC on naming? They were both exhaustive and exhausting. The editor making the changes I was concerned about when I opened that thread is not from Australia, let alone Melbourne, where the particular club is based, and is obviously ignorant of the complexities mentioned above. The situation is far more complex than he both believes and would like it to be. Ignorance of those complexities is a big issue. HiLo48 (talk) 02:01, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing other users of "ignorance" is often unhelpful and insulting. If you could actually refer to a specific policy or guideline that you believe has not been followed, it would be more helpful to state so clearly rather than vaguely claiming "ignorance" without explanation. Despite all the pixels spilled on this discussion, I haven't seen any such policy or guideline on using "FC" over "Football Club" in club names. —sroc 💬 09:03, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to say "It's simple", but it's not. Part of the discussion I touched on above reached a consensus that the round ball game be called Soccer in Australia. This is because, particularly on the side of theBarassi Line where Melbourne is, "football" almost exclusively means Australian Rules Football, an entirely different sport. Legal battles have been fought over soccer clubs wanting to claim names similar to Australian football clubs that have existed for 150 years. I truly wonder if the name he claims is the "full name" (whatever that means) of Melbourne City will actually be allowed to be used in the longer term. This is all new territory. I doubt if our OP knows that. That's ignorance. I don't know what's wrong with the word. Do have a look at the thread I mentioned above where consensus was achieved. It's all relevant. HiLo48 (talk) 11:21, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's irrelevant. I live in Melbourne, follow Australian rules and the world game, and I know the difference between the various "football" codes and terminology well. What you are referring to is what the sport may be called on Wikipedia, which is a matter for Wikipedia guidelines. What is at issue here is the name of the club, which is not for Wikipedia to decide. The club is currently known as Melbourne City Football Club and it is widely reported as such (although it is also known by the shorter form Melbourne City FC as is commonly done for clubs with "Football Club" in their names, especially when the name is repeated). You "wonder" whether the club will be able to use this name "in the longer term", but this is again irrelevant; Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and it is not appropriate for editors to base editorial decisions on what they speculate might happen as the result of legal disputes. If the club is forced to change its name again at some point in the future (as the result of legal considerations or otherwise), then the article may be updated accordingly, but we do not make this judgment pre-emptively. —sroc 💬 12:15, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And it's poor form to lambast another editor as "ignorant" or acting in "bad faith" because they don't follow your views on what you "wonder" will happen, least of all when this is contrary to Wikipedia guidelines. —sroc 💬 12:26, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ignorance is not having sufficient knowledge on a subject. It's a valid term. We still don't have a definition for the "full name" parameter in Infoboxes. That issue has never bee=fore been raised for Australian clubs. And when it gets raised by someone who has no idea of the history in Melbourne.... But I'll stop now. HiLo48 (talk) 20:49, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Need help with Melbourne Victory F.C. Supporters

Hello hilo,

when I created Melbourne Victory F.C. Supporters, I created an inconsistency, by having F.C. instead of FC like the other victory pages. I am just wondering if it is possible that you could rename the article to Melbourne Victory FC Supporters as I do not know how to do so. Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victoryboy (talk • contribs) 08:11, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. HiLo48 (talk) 08:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victoryboy (talk • contribs) 10:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up

FYI, I've done a dummy spit (or two). Pdfpdf (talk) 12:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if "my" ip belongs to me

I think it would be better to assume that this is a shared ip. I know next to nothing about networking so please don't ban us. Other people could be using this for vandalism.

I'm not sure if "my" ip belongs to me

I think it would be better to assume that this is a shared ip. I know next to nothing about networking so please don't ban us. Other people could be using this for vandalism. 86.99.18.78 (talk) 14:52, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Solution: Register at Wikipedia. It's actually far more private than using an open IP address. HiLo48 (talk) 20:26, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question about change

I'm struggling to understand this change. I understand all the discussions going on behind the scenes about the MOS and whatnot, but this sentence refers to the fact that it's the first professional team of any football code, as reference two points out; not just the first 'soccer' team. I won't revert you because this subject is touchy and I've stayed out of it because I don't want to invest any emotional energy whatsoever, but I'd like it if you could revert your own edit there if possible please.

Regards,
Daniel (talk) 01:08, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's simple really. As you're aware, there has been much agony and much "blood" spilt on the naming issue, but there is now a strong (and strongly enforced) consensus that the name to be used for the game in Australian articles is "soccer". See [Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Football in Australia)#Another RfC on naming here]. HiLo48 (talk) 02:26, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure you understood my question. Soccer/football issue aside, this sentence is meant to read that CCM was the first football team (of which soccer is one, along with Australian rules, rugby league, and rugby union) to have a professional team on the Coast. I totally understand the other change per the MOS that you link, but this sentence should read "They were the first professional football club of any code from the Central Coast region to compete in a national competition", which is what the source said. (I added the "of any code" to the original text to clarify this further). Daniel (talk) 06:23, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, and I agree. Want to change the article? HiLo48 (talk) 06:26, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I can do, will do now. Just wanted to make sure first so I don't put my foot squarely in the mire :) Thanks for getting back to me. Regards, Daniel (talk) 06:28, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The recent edit to Ugg boots

My purpose in making that edit was to restore the original consensus version. A later, unexplained and undiscussed edit reversed the order of the paragraph. It only makes sense that since the worldwide market is many times larger than the market in Australia and New Zealand, it is more notable and should be described first. Please revert yourself. 2602:306:C56F:500:C1A6:AE56:2B97:2A5A (talk) 16:23, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Countering one unexplained and undiscussed edit, to content that's unsourced anyway, with another unexplained and undiscussed edit, is not a very helpful way to improve this encyclopaedia. Maybe you need to try to find a source for the basic claim, before the whole thing is removed as unsourced. HiLo48 (talk) 21:21, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Checking the history of the article is easy but tedious. It appears a reliable source was originally provided from the Peoria Journal Star. 2602:306:C56F:500:C1A6:AE56:2B97:2A5A (talk) 00:49, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt very much that a local newspaper would pass muster for a claim about world-wide market share. - Nick Thorne ^talk 04:02, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have copied this discussion to the article talk page, further discussion should take place there. - Nick Thorne ^talk 06:53, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nick. HiLo48 (talk) 06:58, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Hawking "and-an"

Sorry about that edit. I didn't realize it. Irbananaking (talk) 18:54, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HiLo48 (talk) 22:05, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some baklava for you!

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

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

Hey, thanks, HiLo...

I didn't expect a greeting. But thanks. I appreciate it.

BTW, I've been editing Wikipedia since 2005. I am a WP:NPOV warrior, but must say I have been thwarted big time regarding the Intelligent design article. While I wouldn't expect agreement from you, I am heartened that you don't treat me like shit. Thanks. 71.161.194.233 (talk) 02:24, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm fundamentally a nice guy, even though I don't a god to tell me to be. Been editing since 2005, eh? Then I'm really curious. Why not register? HiLo48 (talk) 02:27, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Who says I'm not (registered)? Anyway, I don't need a god to tell me to be a nice guy either. I do need to have gratitude. I also know what is science, what is not, what is religion (and not), and what is philosophy (and there is very little that is not). Not so sure about the defenders of POV at the ID page. 71.161.194.233 (talk) 04:16, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further

Reviewer and rollback

For keeping the baddies at bay...

Humor at Protected Pages

Thanks for information

Compliments on your sang froid

Nice Koekjes

Some words I'm working on

Thank you

I support you

A kitten for you!

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

A barnstar for you!

Barnstar

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

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

I have to record this before it gets buried

A barnstar for you!

Proposed closure of RfC/U

A barnstar for you!

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

A barnstar for you!

A barnstar for you!

Useful source for Sport in Australia and footy people

A barnstar for you!

Aussie rules as AFL

A barnstar for you!

While you were out...

Items of cultural significance in Australia

A beer for you!

Precious

Someone has been editing as LoHi48

Request for input in drafting potential guidelines

Sorry For Being A F%^kup

ITN

What the hell is wrong with me?

Well played

Martin Flanagan

Western Sydney Wanderers FC

Football in Australia

Commendable restraint

My outburst

Barnstar

Recent post

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

HiLo48 comments

Your trump card

Discussion at ANI

Edit summary

October 2013

Auntie Bonita, AO

Interaction ban between Pete and me - Thank you

Unblock

Monty Python

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

Discussions

A kitten for you!

Comment layout

Sorry

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

A barnstar for you!

A Barnstar for you

Once upon a time - the moral of the story

Your draft submission Museum of Australian Democracy at Eureka was accepted

Barnstar

IBAN

Vandalism

Word to the wise

Justin Bieber RfC

I'm depressed. And confused.

Victoria (Australia) article

Do you know.......

Article assistance

Beards/computing

Australian sport naming rules

A cup of coffee for you!

Pop over when you get a chance

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

Hey man, keep your cool

RfC