Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 101.119.18.45 (talk) at 09:14, 30 April 2013 (Undid revision 552854108 by HiLo48 (talk) weakling, we are legion, we never forget, we are anonymous). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome!

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

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

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

Further

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

Reviewer and rollback

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

For keeping the baddies at bay...

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

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

Humor at Protected Pages

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

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

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

Thanks for information

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 21:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Nice Koekjes

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

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

Some words I'm working on

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

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

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

Thank you

I support you

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

A kitten for you!

For your sport work. :)

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

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

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

A barnstar for you!

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

Barnstar

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

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

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

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?

--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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution. This wizard would ask a series of structured questions about the nature of the dispute. It would then determine to which dispute resolution venue a dispute should be sent. If the user agrees with the wizard's selection, s/he would then be asked a series of questions about the details of the dispute (for example, the usernames of the involved editors). The wizard would then submit a request for dispute resolution to the selected venue, in that venue's required format (using the logic of each venue's specialized form, as in proposal #1). The wizard would not suggest a venue which the user has already identified in answer to a question like "What other steps of dispute resolution have you tried?". Similar to the way the DRN request form operates, this would be enabled for all users. A user could still file a request for dispute resolution manually if they so desired. Coding such a wizard would be complex, but the DRN gadget would be used as an outline. Once the universal request form is ready (coded by those who helped create the DRN request form) the community will be asked to try out and give feedback on the wizard. The wizard's logic in deciding the scope and requirements of each venue would be open to change by the community at any time. 3) Additionally, we're seeking any ideas on how we can attract and retain more dispute resolution volunteers.

Please share your thoughts at the RfC.

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

I have to record this before it gets buried

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

I think it's a gem.

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

A barnstar for you!

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

Proposed closure of RfC/U

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

Hasteur, I appreciate what you're trying to do here. For reasons I've outlined many times elsewhere, I regard Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages a great, objective encyclopaedia.

Another point - I would like all involved to look at Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. I am proud of that. I ask objective observers, which would you prefer - no naughty words, but lots of POV in Misplaced Pages, or occasional telling-it-like-it-really-is on Talk pages, and a better encyclopaedia as a result?

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

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

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

Wayne LaPierre

I was probably a little dismissive in my response to your comment on the LaPierre article. Just wanted to thank you for your comment. It is constructive and helpful. Athene cunicularia (talk) 05:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

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

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

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

Thanks for the welcome

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

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

A barnstar for you!

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

A barnstar for you!

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

Useful source for Sport in Australia and footy people

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

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

A barnstar for you!

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

capital g

There are olympian or greek gods. But by using a capital g we make sure we are talking about one God, the creator, the supreme being. I personally use capital g as a sign of respect. Ryanspir (talk) 17:39, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Dunno why you brought this here. Your position appears to be one that is not worth discussing. Expressions like "...one God, the creator, the supreme being" tell me that you already have a very strong position on what the "truth" is. With you starting from such a narrow position, it's not worth discussing. HiLo48 (talk) 20:38, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Maybe you are right. But I'm not Christian as you have assumed. In fact I'm not a follower of any religion. My beliefs are a subject to change following my observations of this world.

What I wrote about capital G, is my opinion of why other editors use it this way. I use it this way only as a sign of respect, as I have said. It may just be that I'm the most reasonable and open-minded believer in God that you may find and as such open to any discussion without any 'holy-facts' or indisputable facts.

I was grown as a full atheist in a family that noone followed any religion. I would mock religions (and I still do) and I would mock people who believe in God. However, during to my observations of how the events are taking place in my life and around me, I started to believe in God. Ryanspir (talk) 10:59, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Pauline Hanson

HiLo, Surturz

As you will no doubt recall, I removed that exceedingly long (and confusing) section on the court cases regarding Abbott, Hanson, and One Nation and provided a much smaller summary. It seems both of you were in agreement that this was an improvement. The contributor who originally provided the info some years ago, and never edited again until last week, nor contributed to our recent discussions, reinstated it within a few weeks and insisted on the talk page that it be there. The only change was to divide the slab of info into sections, and argue that it was not excessive as each of their sections was now about the same size as the others. *rolls eyes*

I was hoping that you both would step in a contribute to the discussion – while I reverted it once from memory, I don’t have the stomach for protracted rollback wars. However, I was kind of all on my little lonesome out there.

I still think it’s ridiculously convoluted and detailed to have all that info on those events in a biography. A summary (such that I provided - albeit arguably rushed and in need of a tidy up) is sufficient. There could be an argument for creating a separate article for all that info, however, either way, it does not belong in the biography.

Would be good to hear your thoughts, say, on the Talk:Pauline Hanson page. Cheers --Merbabu (talk) 23:12, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll have a bit of a look. Hanson seems to be one of those topics that brings out the worst in some editors. High levels of emotion around some of her major policy areas, I guess. HiLo48 (talk) 23:27, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, but on this particular topic you, Surturz, and I came to substantial agreement. At least that's what I saw. Let's focus specifically on that for now. At this stage, all I'm recommending is that you support the reinstatement of the edit that I made to clear the article of the information slab - and then it can be further improved from there. Currently we have the status quo because no-one is responding to the SPA editor. cheers --Merbabu (talk) 00:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Polite request

Could you please not do anything like this again? It really isn't helpful. Thanks a lot. --John (talk) 17:53, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I consider it far more helpful than the constant bringing of internal political point-scoring to the articles of the political leaders of any country. That behaviour is ALWAYS unhelpful. It's almost always an attempt by people whose primary interest is in promoting the success of an opposing political party or leader to damage that leader's image and impose their POV on an article. Rational discussion of the subject matter simply doesn't work with such people, so a bit of fun and satire highlights what's really going on. People such as you have repeatedly ignored or failed to respond to good points made by people who disagree with you. At least I got your attention. Your edit summary said it was INTENTIONALLY disruptive. Is your POV pushing intentional too, or can't you help it? You titled this a Polite request. How about you being polite and responding to the sound arguments of others? HiLo48 (talk) 22:42, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll now add that, despite John saying that my "proposal" wasn't helpful, something seems to have stopped all the crap and POV pushing at Barack Obama. Maybe his opponents are having a think. That would be good. Their opposition tactics have been appalling so far. And all governments need quality opposition. HiLo48 (talk) 04:57, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Aussie rules as AFL

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

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

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

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

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

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

You can respond here. I am watching here.

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

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

See

My edits where correct. I have had enough of this AFL whitewashing. It is nearly as bad as the Labor and Occupy whitewashing on here. Also in case you didn't know I am quite important over at conservapedia so I suggest you don't bother me otherwise your career at wikipedia may come to an abrupt end. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.111.82.106 (talk) 11:50, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

ROFLMAO! No, your edits weren't correct. As I said in both my Edit summary and in my note to you, an Edit summary was required from you to politely explain your change. And further editing was required to your change anyway. That's how things work at Misplaced Pages. Maybe important people at Conservapedia don't have to bother and can just bully their way around, but here you do. Not convinced that text is right yet either. As many here know, I welcome polite discussion about complex issues such as sport in Australia and the language surrounding it. Feel free to initiate some. HiLo48 (talk) 20:44, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I shall have a word to Ed Poor about you. He personally knows quite a few of the founding editors at wikipedia including Jimbo Page and Larry Sanger. (He was user number 188 and signed on about a weak into wikipedias life. He was also first head of what is no arbcom). Why don't you come to conservapedia ? It is a lot more accurate than this website, especially on topics such as evolution and the age of the universe. 58.111.82.106 (talk) 09:47, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Sad. HiLo48 (talk) 09:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Guessing you are a Rationalwiki mole ? One word for you lot. SCUM. Leave conservative alone, he is a very productive editor who is very knowledgable — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.111.82.106 (talk) 09:54, 29 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.13.128.104 (talk)

Your talk page

Oops, sorry for this - I was trying to revert the IP who keeps adding to your page but you beat me to it. I will warn them but in case they IP hop let me put a warning here for them: editors are entirely free to remove material from their own page except in very limited cases. This is not one of them. Please stop re-adding material that HiLo has removed; removal indicates at the very least that your edit has been noted and no repetition is necessary. Kim Dent-Brown 10:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

IP blocked for 3 hours. Longer blocks will happen if they start again. Kim Dent-Brown 10:40, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks HiLo48 (talk) 10:41, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

101.119.18.140 blocked. I'll block them as they come up for the next few hours, I'm at work and can keep the page open. I won't wait for multiple reverts but will block them from their first revert as soon as I see it. Kim Dent-Brown 11:31, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Have blocked 2 or 3 more. Let me know if you want this page semi-protecting to avoid the IP problem - though I know not everyone likes to protect their talk page in this way because it stops the innocent as well as the guilty, of course. Kim Dent-Brown 08:33, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Nah, leave it open for now. surely he's not stupid enough to keep going for much longer. HiLo48 (talk) 08:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Judged on his performance so far, I think he may well be that stupid. But I'll leave your page unprotected of course and carry on with whack-a-mole if needed. Kim Dent-Brown 08:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC)