This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present.
Welcome!
Hello, HiLo48, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! -- Longhair\talk07:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain why reference with 0 citations is notable
HudecEmil - Unlike yours, my edit was fully explained with an Edit summary. All I saw was a removal of content with no explanation. That's unacceptable. You need to tell others what you have done, and why. HiLo48 (talk) 10:34, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That actually reads quite strangely. I don't know what you mean by "citation" and "reference". To me, they are usually the same thing. HiLo48 (talk) 10:56, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it's not just me that you need to convince. Just make sure you write something that explains what you have done to ALL other editors. HiLo48 (talk) 11:13, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I decided that I would just make the reversion myself because this has already been discussed in the talk pages. TaqPCR (talk) 09:25, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, but I wish you would stop seeing me as the enemy and/or arbiter here. The article's Talk page was the place to discuss this, not here, nor in Edit summaries. Yours are essays, not summaries. And do try to be a little less confrontational over this. HiLo48 (talk) 10:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Historyday01 Sorry. I have no idea what happened there. I don't even recall going near that page. Please feel free to restore all you believe is necessary. My apologies again. HiLo48 (talk) 00:36, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Had this guy Roger 8 Roger reverting a few of my edits to do with Māori recently, and I stumbled upon your conversation with him. "Artificial use" of Māori instead of the "normal" English by "officially controlled bodies". "Academic or youth elite" using Māori "is seen as somehow right and proper". This editor clearly has some attitudes and isn't good at hiding them. Dhantegge (talk) 04:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dhantegge - Yes, I'm Australian, and here we have a sub-class of racists here who object to any attempt to give places their original Aboriginal names in place of the names of white people. Mr "Roger" reminded me of them. It's sad that you have them in NZ too. HiLo48 (talk) 05:37, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We call them closet ACT supporters (translation - Pauline Hanson's One Nation or perhaps Clive Palmer's racket). His latest is an attempt to go to war against something I added to the page about the Colony of New Zealand. I added a paragraph referring to the very well established historical consensus that there was a transition of nominative sovereignty to substantive sovereignty (the British declaring they controlled New Zealand in 1841 when they didn't versus 40-60 years later, when the Crown was secure), as well as the argument that Māori did not mean to cede their sovereignty (which has been found repetitively by the Waitangi Tribunal). He reverted this, presumably because he views British law as the only law which means anything and terra nullius as legitimate. In his mind, this means that the New Zealand colony existed with absolute legitimacy immediately after it was proclaimed by a handful of colonial figures, despite Aotearoa then having an almost entirely Māori population, in which they owned all the land and controlled the economy.
Roger's only comment was "no improvement - go to talk", which I did. Surprise, surprise, he ignores it. So these people win by default. Dhantegge (talk) 00:41, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
