Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Vanished user adhmfdfmykrdyr (talk | contribs) at 05:53, 27 March 2013 (→Useful source for Sport in Australia and footy people: new section). 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)

God, not good

Thank you for that. hamiltonstone (talk) 07:47, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

You're quite welcome :-) HiLo48 (talk) 07:49, 1 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)

An edit to please some of my enemies

I must draw the attention of the Americans who hate me to this diff. HiLo48 (talk) 10:43, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Good catch! You seem like a good guy; and no one, American or not, can legitimately claim to "hate" you. It's just a wiki! Thanks again for catching that nonsense! Doc talk 02:22, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that would be a rational position. Obviously religion, by definition, isn't rational, and some (certainly not all) of the adherents here seem determined to silence those with different views. And that's not a rational way to prove that your faith is correct. HiLo48 (talk) 04:48, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

And it's usually a classic example of using the American right to free speech to remove somebody else's. Pure hypocrisy. HiLo48 (talk) 06:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

No form of nationalistic misinterpretations of the American legal concept of "free speech" is allowed here on WP as a reason to include or exclude content. It's not an "American" issue at all. See WP:FREESPEECH for the backstory. Legitimate talk page discourse, especially among those at opposite ends of an argument, cannot be removed according to policy. Doc talk 08:07, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

That would be nice if it could be policed. I've had American editors proclaiming the wonders of their right to use what's given to them by the First Amendment precisely while trying to get me silenced. And it has to be Americans, or the words used would make no sense. And yes, I know it's not all. Many are wonderful people, and it's a great country. But the bigots hold a lot of power here. HiLo48 (talk) 08:14, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Trust me: there is no right to "free speech" here in the way these American editors who say otherwise claim. The First Amendment does not apply here. It's a private website with its own rules, reserving the right to deny access to anyone that isn't going to "work out". Editing Misplaced Pages, like driving an automobile, is a privilege, not a right. So there is no right of free speech. If any of these (fellow) Americans have an issue with this: send them directly to me, and I will clarify it. Cheers : > Doc talk 08:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

It would be a step up if it were ruled by it's rules. It's really more a matter of mob rule.North8000 (talk) 12:25, 9 March 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)

Unacceptable...

This kind of language is unacceptable. Yes, you could argue that "effing" is not actually swearing, but the intent is what counts, and that is what makes it unacceptable. There's been a RFC and ANI discussions about your incessant failure with the WP:CIVIL requirements of wikipedia. A number of people stood up for you, perhaps because those behind the RFC and ANIs were hardly uninvolved, but it would be poor form to let those "supporters" down now. I strongly recommend you tone it down and quick. But that's just my uninvited advice. --Merbabu (talk) 02:23, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Have you had a word to Surturz about his behaving like an bad mannered, incompetent buffoon? Comments such as mine are not made out of the blue, and I really detest being told my behaviour is unacceptable when others are stuffing up our encyclopaedia. I have done nothing of that kind. What bothers you more? Almost naughty words, or rude/stupid/incompetent behaviour? HiLo48 (talk) 05:51, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

And now I've just had another look at that thread. Surturz STILL hasn't responded to the reply I made to the thread HE started. So, he starts a discussion, I respond, he ignores me and, before anyone else responds, he changes the article, and STILL ignores my reply to him. Surturz is either incompetent, or just incredibly bad mannered. Which do think it is? HiLo48 (talk) 06:02, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Cool it HiLo. Don't try and push the envelope of just how close to swearing you can get before you cross the line. I'm not going to block for this, but I will if you repeat it. Your vow still holds good, I trust? Kim Dent-Brown 09:41, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Nah. Had enough of this. Rigorous, rational thinking is out the window here at Misplaced Pages. Incompetence, mediocrity, POV pushing, shallow thinking and appalling manners has been declared acceptable. So long as there's not even a hint of a naughty word, an editor can behave extremely rudely and destructively. That's not building a great encyclopaedia I have several more important things to do with my life right now than spend time on this rubbish and try to have an objective discussion while being ignored. I'm logging off. Might be back. Dunno. HiLo48 (talk) 17:11, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not taking sides here but i've never really understood why the F word is so offensive. "effing" is the reason 99% of humans are alive (unless u were artificially conceived). So from my viewpoint "effing" and all its derivatives are positive words. Pass a Method talk 22:49, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Petition

We hereby want HiLo48 back editing and making a difference here irrespective of what has happened lately.
Sincerely, the following Wikipedians:

• ツ Jenova20 14:08, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

• Yes North8000 (talk) 14:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Stop wasting your time on this page folks. I can only return to editing if you convince those who condemned me in the above thread, User:Merbabu and User:Kim Dent-Brown, that they are wrong, and get an apology from them to me, and a promise to stop threatening me. And that they are also wrong in not condemning User:Surturz for his ill manners, poor procedural behaviour, and apparently just plain stupidity when he claimed he didn't understand why I reverted his deletion. At this point in time User:Surturz, a blatant POV pusher and seemingly not very bright person, is sitting there thinking that his behaviour is fine, while I am condemned for trying to raise the standards of conversation here, and maintain balance and the quality of this encyclopaedia. While I am condemned and attacked, and the guilty experience absolutely no consequences, there's no place for me here. HiLo48 (talk) 19:25, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Apology...Not everyone gets along HiLo but we're here firstly to make Misplaced Pages better and not to make friends and build a social life. Have you thought of joining Misplaced Pages Editor Retention? ツ Jenova20 21:28, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

HiLo you have "thick skin" standards when dishing it out and "thin skin" standards for when others are doing that. Time to change that. Yes, I know Misplaced Pages is unfair, and the imprimatur of those complaining negates my statement a bit, but such is life for now. We want you back as you are.  :-) North8000 (talk) 21:51, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

You might want me as I am, but User:Merbabu and User:Kim Dent-Brown don't, and the latter has made a very obvious threat that he will block me if I stay as I am. Take it up with him. HiLo48 (talk) 22:11, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't really following what was happening on your page to have much of an opinion...but North (and i never thought i would have to say this) is correct that you usually have a thick skin to most of this stuff and handle it well considering how fast it snowballs and consumes your entire talk page. Still, you're a good influence here and you bring balance. Thanks ツ Jenova20 23:32, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Like I said to North, if you really think that's true, please take it up with User:Merbabu and User:Kim Dent-Brown (and maybe User:Surturz as well). They obviously don't agree with you. I have nowhere to go. HiLo48 (talk) 00:14, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

HiLo48 (talk) 00:14, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• Take a look at Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution, including WP:3O, for content disputes. You surely will only be blocked if you edit war or revert war, or insult or make personal attacks. You should find reliable sources that you can quote or cite to support your viewpoint, rather than arguing over matters of personal opinion. LittleBen (talk) 03:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Please take that link to User:Surturz's Talk page. (Why won't any of you approach the people that led to this situation?) This issue never even really reached the stage of a content dispute. It was that user's blatant disregard for, incompetent use of, and abuse of Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution#Discuss with the other party that I was objecting to. Nobody (apart from me) criticised User:Surturz for it at all, but User:Merbabu and User:Kim Dent-Brown condemned me for criticising User:Surturz, just because I used a pretend naughty word. Far too many people here think mischievous words on Talk pages are far more serious offences than damaging actual articles and displaying incredibly bad manners. I cannot agree, and cannot work in such a puritanical and destructive environment. HiLo48 (talk) 06:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and LittleBenW, if you think I can "only be blocked if you edit war or revert war, or insult or make personal attacks", please have a look at User:Kim Dent-Brown's threat in the Unacceptable... thread above. He doesn't like "effing". You think he's wrong? Please tell him. He obviously won't listen to me. HiLo48 (talk) 06:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Apology

HiLo48, if I have offended you, I apologise. It was never my intention to do so. --Surturz (talk) 07:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate that Surturz. I wasn't so much offended, as stunned that you didn't see the problem with commencing a conversation (which was good), then effectively abandoning and ignoring it after only one response.

I honestly didn't think I did ignore your reply, and believed I had explained the reasons for the excision I made, but I guess we just live on different wikiplanets :-) --Surturz (talk) 10:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

So why did you start the discussion on the Talk page at all? HiLo48 (talk) 10:50, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I sometimes post talk page comments to explain what I am doing, rather than to seek consensus for changes I intend to make. If someone reverts, then I will discuss as per WP:BRD. I excised some text, claiming it was WP:OR and WP:BLP vio, since it uses testimony from a court transcript as a ref. Looking at it again, it isn't even really about Pauline Hanson. You reverted the change, and I wasn't sure on what basis you thought the text should stay, so I asked why. I could only surmise from your response that you felt I should have proposed the excision on the talk page first - you and I seem to differ in our approach here - but in the end only the article content matters, so I'd really like to know whether you actually think the text should stay in the article, or whether you only reverted my change because you felt that I did not follow the proper process. Given our history, I would rather go edit somewhere else than spend hours arguing over every edit with the attendant accusations of POV pushing and bias (from both of us) that seem to characterise our interactions. I am the first to admit that I have been very combative in the past on AUSPOL articles, but in real life I turned forty last year and decided that I should start acting like an adult around here. Furthermore, I had the realisation that WP talk page chatter will likely last FOREVER, and have no desire for my descendants to see how much of a dick old granddaddy Surturz was :-) --Surturz (talk) 11:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The point is that you DID begin a conversation. I replied, in complete good faith, perfectly happy to hear your more detailed thoughts. Then you deleted, with no further discussion. I DO see that as incredibly poor manners. A link from someone above yesterday got me looking at Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution#Discuss with the other party. It says "Talking to other parties is not a formality; it's imperative to the smooth running of any community. Not having a discussion, or discussing poorly, will make people less sympathetic to your position and may prevent you from effectively using later stages in dispute resolution." So, again, I would be delighted to discuss that article's contents on that article's Talk page, not here.HiLo48 (talk) 20:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and I do appreciate your acknowledgement that you "have been very combative in the past on AUSPOL articles." Your POV is obvious, and that's possibly the biggest problem. During the recent US Presidential election I closely watched both the Romney and Obama articles, keeping POV pushing, negative garbage out of both. I was accused by both sides of being a supporter of the other. That made me proud. HiLo48 (talk) 20:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Likewise, if anything I've done has made you feel insulted, angry, unsafe or like quitting Misplaced Pages, I apologise. My warning to you above was in response to your non-swearing promise. I regarded your edit here as a gamey attempt to be as rude as possible while staying within the limits of your self-imposed vow. Without your history and the AN/I and RfC threads about you, it would indeed be completely fatuous to threaten a block for the use of the term "effing". But you do have that history - a history in which, if you'll remember, I stuck my neck out to defend you against a ban proposal.

If you would now like to withdraw from your vow, I'll unwatch your talk page and you can edit as you see fit. I won't block you for any reason, ever, and you can take your chances with the processes here. On the other hand if you intend to stick to your vow you will have to accept that other people, not only you, will have a view about whether or not you have broken it. I'm one of those people. I'm holding you to an unusually high standard of behaviour because that's what you've courageously set for yourself.

On the question about why other people get off lightly, you are well aware of the processes that other people have dragged you to. If you feel that other editors are the problem here, not you, then the best thing is to use AN/I, RfC or other venues rather than making general allegations, without diffs, here on your talk page. You know how the systems work from being on the receiving end - if you have right on your side, make use of the systems. Kim Dent-Brown 11:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I said I wouldn't swear. I didn't. It must be a massive cultural difference which allows you to be offended by effing. That word was used by a conservative announcer on our national government radio network, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation the other day. Nobody batted an eyelid. My local parish priest uses the word habitually.

As for others getting off lightly, if you cannot see what led to my effing post, or you can and don't see a problem, you're really not paying attention, or really not caring about polite discourse here. HiLo48 (talk) 20:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't personally offended. But your 'effing' post was intemperate, hostile and (in my opinion) an attempt to game your own vow. My opinion might not gain consensus support if it's ever tested but it is what it is, and it differs from yours. Just as you complain about Americans and their cultural assumptions, you perhaps have your own unexamined assumptions about what is and is not acceptable.

And no, I can't see what led to your 'effing' post because you haven't made your case anywhere. If you can't be bothered to gather your evidence and report other people using the mechanisms available to you, but they can be bothered to gather the evidence and report you then you can't really complain about the consequences.

The end result of this is that our discussions over the last few months have turned me from a supporter of yours to an increasingly bored critic. I'm disappointed at your insistence on thick skin for others when you are dishing it out, but your thin-skinned reaction to criticism of you. It's particularly a shame that you are an excellent critic of others' cultural assumptions, while being apparently blind to your own.

But I'm just repeating myself and as you don't seem to be getting this, I won't post here again unless you ask me to. My earlier offer stands: as long as you maintain your vow, I will hold you to it according to my standards. Just lay off the swearing, and the codewords for swearing at people, and you are home free. But if you want to release yourself from the vow just say so, I'll unwatch this page and you are on your own. Kim Dent-Brown 20:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I will do everything I can to avoid reporting people here. The ANI processes are appalling, and deliver nothing resembling justice. HiLo48 (talk) 20:30, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

For non-specific topics (e.g. general behavior where the norm is for people to show up and tell lies about anybody they want to get rid of) I would say "appalling" is too nice of a word. AN and ANI in those cases are places of random mob violence, 10 times more destructive than any "ill" that they are addressing. North8000 (talk) 20:48, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Yep. HiLo48 (talk) 20:51, 25 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)