Misplaced Pages

Interpersonal communication does not work when messages are left on individual users' talk pages rather than threaded, especially when a third party wishes to read or reply.

Being a "bear of very little brain", I get easily confused when trying to follow conversations that bounce back and forth, so I've decided to try the convention that many others seem to use, aggregation of messages on either your talk page or my talk page. If the conversation is about an article I will try to aggregate on the article's talk page.

• If the conversation is on your talk page or an article talk page, I will watch it.
• If the conversation is on my talk page or an article talk page and I think that you may not be watching it, I will link to it in a note on your talk page, or in the edit summary of an empty edit. But if you start a thread here, please watch it.

I may mess up, don't worry, I'll find it eventually. Ping me if you really need to.

please note this is a personal preference rather than a matter of site policy

Metalloid

Good day John. One of the FAC moderators, Ian Rose, suggested I contact you before relisting this article. His advice was here, right at the end, and went as follows:

Closing comment -- This has been open six weeks now without approaching consensus to promote so I'll be archiving it shortly. It does appear that the article has improved since its first FAC so I'd encourage you to return here after the usual two-week break between FAC nominations. I'd also recommend, if you haven't already done so at some stage, inviting Squeamish Ossifrage and John to look over the article prior to that (sort of an informal peer review) to get their take on its readiness for another go. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Are you in a position to help please? Thank you, Sandbh (talk) 01:27, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

PS: Not sure what has happened to Squeamish Ossifrage; appears to be incommunicado.

Be happy to take a look. --John (talk) 09:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi John. Thank you for your edits to the lede. I'd now like to relist this article as a FAC. Do you have any further concerns about it? . Sandbh (talk) 11:26, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Gosh, I'm sorry this dropped off my radar. I will look some time today. --John (talk) 11:29, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, I had a good read of it. I think it will take a proper copyedit to pass FAC. I can look at it tonight or early tomorrow. Hope that is some help. --John (talk) 21:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

That would be most welcome. Please let me know if I can help. Sandbh (talk) 23:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Mainly just wordsmithing, it is much improved from when I last looked at it. It will be tomorrow now but I am sure I can do something. Thanks for the ping and well done on the progress on the article. --John (talk) 23:42, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I took a small chop at it. I think I could still do more. What do you think so far? --John (talk) 15:46, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Please also see this and this edits to templates transcluded on the page. --John (talk) 17:34, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Holy Rood High School Edinburgh, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Arthur's Seat (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. --John (talk) 09:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Gage and EEng

After spending more than 30 hours researching Phineas Gage, I've come to a clear conclusion that EEng has a COI and a non-neutral POV to push. The COI on personal, academic and possible financial motives for the views expressed at Phineas Gage carry on a "thinly disguised vendetta against other Gage experts and the frequent aspersions cast on their scholarship … motives." and " attack on a social constructionist view of history that allegedly disregards facts..." I've taken the matter to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I believe that EEng's COI should prevent him from editing the article directly. He may be an expert on the matter, but such is true with the Cold fusion topic area and Scientology. I believe you have also tried to address the baroque prose and information layout, I have Macmillan's book on hand and the article's references do not match the claims made. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:00, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry to hear you are frustrated at that article. I agree with you it would be better for all if User:EEng could step away from the article as he has become too close to it and his idea of good writing certainly doesn't match mine. Other than engage in dispute resolution (as you have done) or walking away (as I have done) I do not know what to suggest. Are there any other good sources? Sometimes that can break a log-jam like this one. Sorry I can't be more help. --John (talk) 18:05, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Macmillan 2000 is a collection of almost all primary documents including several which Misplaced Pages does not consider RSes. I particularly like how the undertaker's record not only gets Gage's name wrong and omits his full age (unlike all others), but the Corsini Encyclopedia and Fleischmann's book which EEng portrays as a children's book contains a detailed account of the exhumation and who was present, to which the article currently states as "(Though some accounts assert that Gage's iron was buried with him, there is no evidence for this.)" Which is lovely when you have 3 sources cited as stating it, and another more detailed account not cited. Though, what can I really do? EEng doesn't balance the fact that both records have to be wrong for their theory to be correct - both Harlow and the undertaker records. A lovely theory when Gage died at the family's house and they could not spell his name correctly and didn't know his birth date. And secondly, when Harlow got the account later, got the dates wrong by a year, and Macmillan adjusted every date to match. Questionable at minimum. Also, Dr. Gene Bont, found proof that Gage did in fact promote himself as a curiosity. This is absent. I am really more concerned about what is not in the article instead of what is. And that which is, is not a neutral POV. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:46, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you that there is a NPOV problem at this article. I agree that EEng likely has a COI in editing this article. I also don't think EEng is nearly as good a writer as he thinks he is. Unfortunately, none of this stuff is really actionable; Gage is not a living person and is unlikely to complain that we write badly or inaccurately about him. So DR is the way to go; please ping me if you plan to raise this again centrally. --John (talk) 18:52, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Chris, I would further advise you to at least take a break from engaging with him and from the article. It can't be good for you and there is a lot of other stuff to do on here. --John (talk) 17:32, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

True, some of EEng's comments, implying I am a mental patient or a subject of study are degrading. I don't like the refactoring of my talk page posts and I shouldn't have to tolerate someone reinserting and refactoring my text to mock me either. I suppose I should do a few more GAs. While I wait for DR or perhaps mediation ( a suggestion given the complex nature) to begin. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:41, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• Would you object to an AN topic ban thread? The situation continues to deteriorate with EEng. Like "There can no longer be any doubt that you, "ChrisGualtieri", are either a hopeless incompetent or a troll—​doesn't matter which." The most widespread error in the dating was made by Macmillan, I say it must be noted - so others don't read the source and find it wrong as well. EEng may work for Macmillan, but keeping such a major error out is bad. The text was clear and confident, see for yourself. Even Macmillan's "correction" is ambiguous about record and its detailing. Such a mistake needs to be communicated via a note if not directly in the text - its widespread. I question why every source, including Harlow, gets the details wrong, but that's another matter. Though if EEng is unable to restrain or control himself, then he should not be editing the article - he couldn't figure out that none of 483 "Shy" templates were working and made a fuss over its removal. He's got a COI and OWN issues in spades. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:15, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I think that might be a good idea. Whether it will gain traction or not it will at least get other eyes onto the matter. Be aware that all editors' conduct will be examined. --John (talk) 07:31, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
    • True, but I have clearly stated my position and reiterated it twice more if EEng could not understand it, being more explicit in each case only for EEng to respond in big and bold: "Again, as seen above you are either a hopeless incompetent or a troll. I won't respond to your posts in the future, except as necessary to prevent their misleading editors who may not understand the nature of you activities here." I'll ask an uninvolved admin because I think EEng is violating WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA by repeatedly calling me a "hopeless incompetent or a troll". An formal "drama thread" at AN may not be needed with the COI, OWN and NPA issues. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:06, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
      • I've asked EEng how they would prefer to deal with it. --John (talk) 17:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject Freedom of speech

• WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech

There is a WikiProject about Freedom of speech, called WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech. If you're interested, here are some easy things you can do:

1. List yourself as a participant in the WikiProject, by adding your username here: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Freedom_of_speech#Participants.
2. Add userbox {{User Freedom of speech}} to your userpage, which lists you as a member of the WikiProject.
3. Tag relevant talk pages of articles and other relevant pages using {{WikiProject Freedom of speech}}.
4. Join in discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Freedom of speech.
5. Notify others you think might be interested in Freedom of speech to join the WikiProject.

Thank you for your interest in Freedom of speech, — Cirt (talk) 20:56, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I've added myself. Thank you for the invitation. --John (talk) 21:02, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh, excellent, thanks for joining out WikiProject! — Cirt (talk) 21:08, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

There's no freedom of speech here, and there never will be while the Californians are in charge. I recall being blocked for referring to an unnamed editor as an "admin wannabee". Not the worst insult in the world, but an indicator of where WP has gone wrong. Criticism and disagreement are banned, only hearty congratulatory black slapping is allowed. Eric Corbett 21:21, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

True. I sense another wiki-break coming on as I am feeling a bit unappreciated. I am sure the project will stagger on without me. Of course, we don't have Freedom of Speech (in a constitutional sense) in our United Kingdom, it's an American thing. I think when I saw someone (presumably an adult) at that TFA discussion use the phrase "the F-bomb", my wiki-morale slipped below the water line. It's been heading that way for a while now. --John (talk) 21:25, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Mine too. Eric Corbett 21:35, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Generally a week or two away and I recharge. This is maybe going to be a longer break. The shit:good things ratio is getting too high. --John (talk) 21:37, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

WP will continue trundling along to wherever it's trundling on to, regardless of what you or I might choose to do. We can't change anything, even though much needs to be changed. Eric Corbett 23:28, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Colin MacIntyre

In case I forget, thanks for doing loads of work on this article - the referencing in particular. At some point I might have a bit of time to see what else can be found and see what there might be to add - well, maybe anyway :-) Cheers Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:01, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Aw, that's nice of you, thank you for noticing. I have pretty much run out of steam for now. If you can find anything else I would be interested. His dad should probably have an article too. --John (talk) 16:03, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

That's done. His dad was far more notable than his brother or sister-in-law. Interesting story. --John (talk) 19:14, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your comments at WP:AN. I will try and prove the community's confidence in me by editing in a productive manner and avoid entering into conflict with other editors as in the past. You may be interested to note I have just launched the article Esteban Mestivier as I promised and I would welcome your input if you have a moment. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:53, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I am sure you will be fine. Let me know if there is anything I can do for you. The new article looks good. --John (talk) 22:11, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Enid Blyton

Thanks John. I'd just like to be left alone for a few days to try and transform this pig's ear into a sow's purse. I know that's an ultimately futile effort given WP's "anyone can edit" philosophy, but at least I'll have tried. Eric Corbett 22:19, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Heh, good luck with that. Have you seen this travesty? --John (talk) 22:24, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd dread to look at that. Think I'll stick to the authors of children's books for now. Eric Corbett 23:22, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

It's a sad time when even the supposed best of our articles are mired in sludge, and we have users arguing with a straight face to use tabloid sources on living people. --John (talk) 23:40, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

So what's new? "Anyone can edit" has much to answer for. Eric Corbett 23:45, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

You're right. It's been our blessing and our curse. We've both been around long enough to see it change as well. Do you think it is worse than it was when we started? Or have we just become older and more cynical? Or both? --John (talk) 23:48, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't around in the earliest days, when WP was obviously desperately short of content and had to do whatever was required to get some. But those days were gone before you and I became involved, yet the attitude still pervades the project. And that's the problem; WP doesn't now need more content, it needs better content. Eric Corbett 23:58, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. Although I did write a rather interesting new article yesterday, in general I do agree we should be improving what we have, not producing huge amounts of new content. --John (talk) 00:00, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I've created a few new articles myself, 132 at the last count, the most recent of which is the magnificent North Western Gas Board. Eric Corbett 00:29, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Nice one. Hey, don't let the bastards grind you down; that thread at talk:Jimbo was nauseating and my gut reaction would've been the same. Here's mine; bloody interesting story I thought. --John (talk) 07:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Royal Hospital for Sick Children (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting that. --John (talk) 10:08, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

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) 04:06, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for asking. I have read the discussion and may comment there. --John (talk) 16:31, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

I am fresh out of wiki kittens; please accept this cake as a thank you for your support during my (now withdrawn) RfA. Also, thank you for recognizing a certain comment for what it was. What doesn't kill us... Cheers, Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:32, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

protection of page

Hi. Thank you for protect an article about Serbs, but you should return to version before the request. Also you see the talk page.--Sokac121 (talk) 21:59, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Hungarian-Slovak something

Hi, thanks for your admin work. I haven't followed in much detail but this edit warring case seems to have other strands to it. The editor of the two whom you warned nearly tipping over 3RR rather than blocked has put in a move request at Talk:Sámuel Mikoviny "Today he is the pride of both the Hungarian and Slovak nations" which the other editor (the Hungarian editor who did tip over 3RR and you did block) had worked on and moved back in 2010. This has now been complicated by appearance of an evidently not new user as IP with no edit history in support. Time signature 11:25 onwards. As you are familiar with the background, would you mind taking a closer look. I'm not familiar with either editor or with Hungarian/Slovak issues, but something seems afoot. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:18, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

just noticed this also. Sorry this information is in dribs and drabs, only half an eye on it. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:44, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you. I am not necessarily familiar with the background, although I suspected this might be controversial. Let me know if you see that editor doing anything else even slightly resembling edit-warring and I will block them. Also, isn't there an Arbcom restriction in place in that area? --John (talk) 16:44, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Will do. But I'm sorry, since not my area I don't know re Arbcom restrictions, at least I can't see anything related to Kingdom of Hungary in Category:Misplaced Pages articles under general sanctions. And I don't think the Romania IP 86.126.34.194 is related to the Slovakia editor. But 86.126.34.194 comes from Craiova, as most of Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Iaaasi. It's evidently someone's sock. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:38, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Found it, it's WP:ARBEE. --John (talk) 20:47, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Feedback request

Hi John,

I was wondering if you'd be willing to continue your review of the writing in the amphetamine article on Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Amphetamine/archive2. I also want to apologize for coming off slightly confrontational in my initial response; I was a bit stressed that day.

Regards, Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 00:13, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Of course. --John (talk) 00:43, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I saw this and thought of you....

Was Jimi Hendrix murdered by his manager? "It was said had worked for British intelligence and that he could speak fluent Russian." Another shining example of "quality" journalism. Ritchie333 21:33, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much. In a strange and maybe worrying sense I actually quite enjoy these semi-fictional speculative accounts of real events. But they sometimes cause damage or distress to living people, and use the libel court as their clarifications and corrections process. Imagine if we wrote Misplaced Pages articles based on these! --John (talk) 22:05, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I've seen worse..... Ritchie333 22:08, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Wow. That's astonishing. --John (talk) 22:20, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

At least it was a guy who has been dead a few years, for whatever difference that makes. I took a wee hack at it, hope you don't mind. --John (talk) 22:47, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

More vandalism from TheDoctor660

Hi. Since you gave TheDoctor660 the final warning for vandalism, I thought I'd report his latest act of vandalism to you. Nightscream (talk) 13:39, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Blocked indef. --John (talk) 13:46, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

ani close

Re your ANI close; it's my belief there really isn't a content dispute, as there was an RFC last August Talk:Soccer_in_Australia/Archive_3 that pretty definitely settled the issue, and those editors proposing changing it are essentially trying to develop a local consensus to override wp:commonname. I understand that's likely not obvious from the huge wall o' text on the Soccer in Australia talk page, but if you filter out comments about other editors and people repeating themselves (which means about 95% of the words there). You are, of course, welcome to make your own assessment if you have time to waste on it. Or ask the Drmies for their assessment of the content situation. NE Ent 22:16, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. --John (talk) 22:17, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, yes and no. HiLo actually said in that discussion that consensus can change, but it's not likely to change this way. Thanks for closing it, John. I wish HiLo, though, would realize that what he got in that thread (which was that the others basically got a slap on the wrist) was the most he was going to get. The more HiLo stays mum and doesn't complain, the more credit he builds up. Anyway. Ent, and John, thanks again. Drmies (talk) 00:16, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate the feedback. --John (talk) 07:17, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

HiLo48s recent position of "I don't like it" is nothing more than a facile personal attack

As seen Here and I'm completely sick of this user using[REDACTED] regulations to game the system on Misplaced Pages:NPA. If you read the talk page on Soccer in Australia you'll also see his previous behaviour of hiding behind Misplaced Pages:Competence is required to call other users that challenge his nonsense behaviour incompetent. This is a very long line of infractions over many years that I am quite simply fed up with administrators doing nothing about --Orestes1984 (talk) 03:09, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I see you've been blocked and then retired since leaving this message. I am truly sorry as I would have preferred that that be avoided. I can see no good reason why naming should be discussed there so soon after an RfC. I will have zero-to-little tolerance for anyone who is misbehaving in this area. --John (talk) 07:20, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

We shall see if Orestes stays retired once his block expires. However, I hope you realise that it was not HiLo48 that was trying to change the naming in contradiction of the consensus attained during that RFC. I find it more than a little ironic for Orestes to be complaining about gaming the system. - Nick Thorne 12:30, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

We shall indeed. There are always two sides (at least) to every story. I am well aware of who was doing what on that discussion. It can be frustrating if you think you are making good arguments and someone else keeps repeating boilerplated links. I think for now it will be good to take a break from this discussion. It isn't urgent. When we come back to it, we will all need to work extra hard to be civil, and discuss the ideas and not the person. --John (talk) 15:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm embarrassed that this kind of harassment of administrators around here is deemed as appropriate behaviour --Orestes1984 (talk) 11:53, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry, I don't feel like I am being harassed here. Thanks for thinking of me. --John (talk) 12:31, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Quote from Galileo

Your "Quote of the Month" on your user page is a particularly useful one. It reinforces something similar from Plato, where he quotes Socrates in Gorgias: SOCRATES: You, Gorgias, like myself, have had great experience of disputations, and you must have observed, I think, that they do not always terminate in mutual edification, or in the definition by either party of the subjects which they are discussing; but disagreements are apt to arise—somebody says that another has not spoken truly or clearly; and then they get into a passion and begin to quarrel, both parties conceiving that their opponents are arguing from personal feeling only and jealousy of themselves, not from any interest in the question at issue. And sometimes they will go on abusing one another until the company at last are quite vexed at themselves for ever listening to such fellows. Why do I say this? Why, because I cannot help feeling that you are now saying what is not quite consistent or accordant with what you were saying at first about rhetoric. And I am afraid to point this out to you, lest you should think that I have some animosity against you, and that I speak, not for the sake of discovering the truth, but from jealousy of you. Now if you are one of my sort, I should like to cross-examine you, but if not I will let you alone. And what is my sort? you will ask. I am one of those who are very willing to be refuted if I say anything which is not true, and very willing to refute any one else who says what is not true, and quite as ready to be refuted as to refute—for I hold that this is the greater gain of the two, just as the gain is greater of being cured of a very great evil than of curing another. For I imagine that there is no evil which a man can endure so great as an erroneous opinion about the matters of which we are speaking and if you claim to be one of my sort, let us have the discussion out, but if you would rather have done, no matter—let us make an end of it. Both Galileo and Socrates were very familiar with "those sort of fellows", who held their own beliefs steadfast against all reason. --Pete (talk) 04:57, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the further quote and I am glad you enjoyed mine. Some things never change. --John (talk) 06:24, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Peru national football team FAC

Hello John. The article you reviewed (Peru national football team), went through a major copy-edit based on your recommendation. Could you please provide a new review of it based on the changes? Ian plans to close the nomination on Friday/Saturday, so your comments would be much welcomed. Thanks!--MarshalN20 01:11, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I will have another look tonight. --John (talk) 07:16, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much friend. I look forward to it.--MarshalN20 16:34, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Commented tonight as promised. I think we can do it. --John (talk) 23:18, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Macktheknifeau

User:HiLo48, you asked me to look at User:Macktheknifeau in light of the discussion we had here. I don't see any recent or actionable problematic editing from them, but I would encourage you to bring any future concerns here as opposed to article talk. Please show diffs when you do. Macktheknifeau, we are having an effort to sort out the problematic behaviour around Australian ball sports. It'd be great if you could join the effort, as I think HiLo48 has committed to do. Will you? --John (talk) 23:15, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

John, look here, especially the Edit summary. No discussion at all, of course. User:Macktheknifeau knows what the formal consensus is, but clearly doesn't like it.

Then look here from a couple of weeks later. Not even an Edit summary, let alone discussion.

These are but two examples of repeated similar behaviour. HiLo48 (talk) 23:54, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

The two examples HiLo48 presented (and there are many more on various articles - thousands of articles) came after 6-7 months of the most agonising discussions on Talk:Soccer in Australia. I don't want to make out HiLo48 as a punching bag, but I would certainly not be the only one to think he has created a situation where ("anti-soccer") editors are pushed against brick walls.

I am not condoning Macktheknifeau's actions, but there is really nothing wrong/should be nothing wrong with those changes. John, I am asking for discussion and for change.--2nyte (talk) 02:01, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, there is something fundamentally wrong, in that they breach consensus, but I guess your point is that you believe the consensus is wrong. I don't think I created that situation. You are describing a disagreement with consensus as feeling like being "pushed against brick walls". There are some areas on Misplaced Pages where I think consensus is wrong too. I feel frustrated by it, so I know how you feel. In those areas I just try to present the soundest and most complete cases I can. Doesn't always work though. In that area of "most complete case", what is always missing in the anti-"soccer" argument is a thorough explanation of what's wrong with the name "soccer" in Australia. That explanation has to cope with the reality that a huge number of Australians, including many fans and players, still very comfortably use the name "soccer" for the game.

I apologise to John for bringing that part of the debate here, and he can delete it if he wants, but I'm trying to home in on just the key issues here. HiLo48 (talk) 04:42, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Consensus is consensus, and I accept the decision. Though the only consensus reached was for the title of Soccer in Australia (with the agreement that Football in Australia is ambiguous for that title). Since then, I have attempted to engage in a larger discussion regarding the use of "soccer" in all Australian wiki content - I feel that discussion is still needed.

Now again, I don't want to vilify HiLo48, but I do feel he has targeted users (I being one of them) and this topic in general. Further, I believe HiLo48 should not be associated with the decisions regarding this topic. I know these are strong claims, but I will follow them through, though I do not know the procedure to do so. I accept opposition to debate (it adds legitimacy), but I believe HiLo48 has shown great bias, even hatred toward the topic.--2nyte (talk) 05:42, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh dear. HiLo48 (talk) 05:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Umm, I would not have thought that an admin's talk page was the smartest place to launch a personal attack on another editor. - Nick Thorne 06:28, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't know wiki policy that well, but I'm basically asking for assistance. Assistance in discussing the Soccer in Australia issue and in discussing HiLo48. I wouldn't know "the smartest place to launch a personal attack on another editor", if there is even one. Here we are discussing Macktheknifeau's edits and I thing what I've brought up is related to the issue. As a key wiki contributor to the round ball game in Australia I want the two topics i brought up discussed and resolved, but I need assistance to do so.--2nyte (talk) 06:48, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

• I appreciate the discussion. Those two edits are indeed worrying if they were to continue, but the last one was from over a week ago. I will ask them not to do it again. Would it help to clarify whether that RfC on the title of Soccer in Australia should be used as a rationale for changing the language in multiple other articles? 2nyte, the same standards apply to you as to the other editors I have invited here. If you feel another editor is currently behaving badly, bring a diff here that I can do something about. Otherwise, it would be best to leave these feelings (which I accept are strong) behind as we move forwards in bringing peace to this area. Can you work with me on that? --John (talk) 07:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)