User talk:HiLo48

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be auto-archived by if there are more than 5.

hello

How many articles do you contribute to? 71.223.156.64 (talk) 10:03, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lots. I have 4,114 articles on my Watchlist. HiLo48 (talk) 10:48, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for David Stratton

On 15 August 2025, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article David Stratton, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Schwede 66 23:46, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"College" in the U.S.

Hey Hilo: the language ref desk got archived even as I was responding to your question from a week and half back. I considered un-archiving, but didn't want to run the risk of frustrating a bot process. So I figured I'd just respond to you here, in case any part of it can be of some use to you.

HiLo48 A fair bit of what I am about to say is touched upon in comments above, but I'm going to synthesize it together with additional elements of the semantics (both in idiomatic common usage and more formal technical administrative distinction) that have yet to be addressed, to hopefully be responsive to the heart of your inquiry:

First, as a threshold matter, one has to consider the colloquial way in how both "college" is often used: to have "gone to college" suggests one has had some degree of post-secondary education, whether at an institution which is designated as a college or a university. I would say (bearing in mind my mixed background/experience of unis in the UK, States, and Canada), that contrary to what has been vaguely implied above, it is not unheard of for an American to say that they are going to university when referencing their undergraduate work, nor to refer to their time "at college" in a way that is inclusive of both their undergraduate and graduate stints. It's all very fuzzy.

To further complicate matters, a 'college' may refer to either 1) an institution as a whole (in which case it is typically, but not always, a community college, which tend to have cheaper tuition and less onerous admissions standard--though again, not a universal rule that holds up for all comparisons), or 2) a specific department within a larger institution, in which case that institution is typically designated a university. When referencing a college in the latter case, it often means there is a historical campus associated with that aspect of the larger entity, but sometimes it is just an administrative distinction. To be fair to America, many of the distinctions and variances discussed in this immediate paragraph also apply in commonwealth systems: I'm not sure about Australia: you would know better yourself. Incidentally, that raises another idiomatic factor: referring to the university experience as 'uni' is something I have heard most from Aussies, somewhat for Britains, but I don't think ever for Americans or Canadians.

Now Trovatore has identified a few extra distinctions, but I think that two of them need to be pulled back slightly, as they are not as uniform as implied: while unquestionably Universities tend to be larger institutions, there is considerable regional variation: there are definitely many colleges in states with cities of significant size and population density that are larger than many universities in less dense states and territories. Similarly, although it's true that very few community colleges are research institutions, many (actually, probably the majority) of universities also are not: most states have a "state university" system, of institutions that are all significantly subsidized and regulated by a state, with some degree of interconnection between their administration, the extent of which varies greatly from system to system. These universities run the gamut from highly prestigious schools that are about comparable with Ivy League institutions down to very broadly accessible institutions that have funding, programs, and campuses of a similar scale to community colleges. The tertiary schools which adopt the label of college, by the way, can be private institutions, state-sponsored or (not uncommonly) funded partly by municipalities and counties. Anyway, with regard to "state universities", I would say the majority in fact not "research institutions", particularly in those states that have up to a couple dozen campuses/universities within the state system. However, Trovatore's observation about "colleges" offering degrees that rise only as high as a masters program is pretty uniform. I'm sure there must be exceptions, but I have never encountered a community college in the States with a doctoral program.

It's important to note that many of the distinctions here are best understood as trends, no hard and fast rules. From a purely formalistic and administrative perspective, a degree is distinguished by its type (associate, bachelors, masters, doctorate, post-doctoral fellowship), not it's provenance. That is to say, if you apply for graduate program, you will be meeting minimum requirement of previous bachelor's education regardless of whether you attended Yale or the College of Podunk. But beyond that technicality, the socially persuasive value of your degree in pursuing either further educational or employment opportunities is much more informed by the very specific school you went to, and those reputations carry a lot of weight. So while on average university students can be expected to have higher earning and advancement outcomes than community college students, there is a lot of variation within that generality.

The use of "college" (as the title for the overarching institution) has therefor become one way in which a school can indicate relatively low costs of attendance in an American post-secondary educational system that is in crisis over cost and accessibility, which is a whole other topic. It is now common for many beginning their tertiary education to first attend one or two years at a community college (or even just a university of lower standing in the university rankings) and then matriculate/transfer to the institution where from which they wish their bachelor's degree to be issued. In this sense, their "going to college" could involve a community college, followed by a transfer to university, from which they achieve a degree which might be issued from a college (meaning sub-institution within that university), before attending graduate school at the same or separate university. See: not complicated at all! SnowRise ^{let's rap} 00:22, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that detailed explanation. Not complicated? LOL. HiLo48 (talk) 00:30, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for all their talk to the contrary, nobody does either idiomatic linguistic constructions or byzantine bureaucracies in all their flexible and frustrating aspects quite like Americans--don't let them tell you otherwise! SnowRise ^{let's rap} 01:01, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strange Practice

Do you find it acceptable that my posts are now being arbitrarily deleted for no discernible reason other than silencing a point of view? You ask me about a suggestion as to media sources and I read that the Age is now unacceptable because it's a blatantly right wing company', so perhaps if you provide a list of what's acceptable ... ? 124.170.106.19 (talk) 10:12, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To start with, whoever you are, you are not a registered user, and your ISP gives you a different IP address every time you sign on. That means I cannot tell if you are the same person who made other posts here from similar IP addresses. That makes sensible conversation difficult. Please sign up to Wikipedia so you always post with the same User Name. Right from the time these discussions began, you have appeared to be someone who wants to write negative things about Andrews. Wikipedia is supposed to be written from neutral point of view. And it's difficult to tell exactly what you want written. What the police did or didn't do is not content about Andrews. HiLo48 (talk) 23:20, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioning Dr Shuey's report in the article is presenting information from a neutral POV. Deleting a person's post because you don't like what they have to say is not the act of someone who is attempting to present a balanced view. Calling the Age a blatantly right wing company is a biased view. There is no compulsion on me to sign up for an account, Wikipedia is promoted as the encyclopedia anyone can edit. 124.170.121.53 (talk) 02:26, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shuey's report IS NOT about Dan Andrews. It's about the police. I didn't call The Age blatantly right wing. I just think it's important to educate people about the fact that is no longer a left wing outlet, if it ever was. And you're right, there is no compulsion to sign up, but if you do, you can participate in discussions better. Did you notice that your IP address changed between your last two posts? I cannot even sure sure that you're the same person who posed earlier in this thread. It also gives you more privacy. From your IP address I can use a lookup tool to tell me that you use iiNet and that you live somewhere in northern Victoria, maybe near Violet Town or Tatura. With registered Ussr Name, it's much more difficult to do. HiLo48 (talk) 02:55, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So is the Age an acceptable source, or not. It makes no sense to say that it's 'no longer a left wing outlet, if it ever was.' Are only left wing sources allowed? What matters is truth and factual information, regardless of where it's published.

That my IP address changes has nothing to do with me, do you really believe that the discussion on the talk page was multiple people responding in a single discussion? If so, then why did the other user delete my posts? And why are you so obsessed with my IP address anyway, attempting to say 'I know where you are.'? You're way off-beam, I live on the Mornington Peninsula. I'm not interested in hiding my IP address, why should I?

And Shuey's report has many mentions of Andrews & his conduct during the aftremath of the accident, have you read it? 124.170.121.53 (talk) 14:19, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I read Shuey's report. I saw nothing worth putting in a Wikipedia article. Describing The Age as I did was a response to somebody (You?) describing it as Pravda. It probably just scrapes in as a reliable source, but no longer a great one as it was ten or more years ago. And yes, the fact that your IP address changes is outside you control. That's the whole point. Some ISPs do that. But it means I cannot post on your Talk like you posted on mine, because you don't have a single, stable one. You choosing to not register a User Name is legal, but it has many negatives. It suggests to me, and I'm sure to to others, that you have no intention of becoming a long-term constructive editor here.HiLo48 (talk) 22:52, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The report is not only about the police investigation, it's about the actions of the Andrews. Having read it, you know that. Shuey was quite critical of his actions.

Your whole attitude is WP:JUST as you don't want anything that you perceive to be negative written about him. The issue of my not having an account is a red herring. 124.170.116.56 (talk) 02:12, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have given you several reasons why having an account matters. If I didn't have one we wouldn't having this conversation. GO back to the Dan Andrews Talk page and propose specific wording you think should be in the article. HiLo48 (talk) 02:41, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My posts will be deleted. 124.170.116.56 (talk) 03:12, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you keep your posts objective and sensible, I'll argue against them being deleted. Be very specific about what you think should be in the article, without any personal commentary. And do get your own User name. Your credibility will improve.HiLo48 (talk) 03:33, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My posts have been objective and sensible. Unlike the editor who's proposing to write an entire article on what s/he calls a conspiracy theory. I didn't realize, however, that there's a credibility rating on wikipedia, or an arbitrary censorship capability that allows my posts to be deleted without recourse. 124.170.116.56 (talk) 04:45, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, are you the same person I was chatting to above? You have a new IP address. How do I know who you are? HiLo48 (talk) 06:08, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that's me. Just ask if you have to. Didn't stop the other editor in the talk page thread threatening me, closing discussions, hiding posts, deleting posts etc. So much for the encyclopedia that anyone can edit: "You're welcome to edit without creating an account ..." 124.170.116.56 (talk) 06:54, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are, but it comes with some challenges that I have tried to politely explain to you. HiLo48 (talk) 07:07, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And I have politely decided, of my own volition, to not accept your premise, so there's no need to keep begging the point. Unless, of course, you consider it a neat deflection from the issue at hand. The other editor had no problem in discerning that my posts for a single account, hence their censorious approach. 124.170.116.56 (talk) 07:15, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft to mainspace request

Hello, I've been adding to Australian rules articles and just created one for St Kilda rookie Liam O'Connell. It's still a draft as I'm not an autoconfirmed user yet and unable to move it to the mainspace. If you're free to, could you move it? O'Connell made his AFL debut this season so is worthy of an article. Cheers. - Wharfie94 (talk) 02:20, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that's beyond my authority level. I suggest you ask at The Teahouse. HiLo48 (talk) 02:25, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All good, it's been added to the queue. - Wharfie94 (talk) 09:31, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Bruce Lehrmann

I don't understand your edit at Special:Diff/1309291483. TarnishedPath^talk 06:15, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see you just self reverted. All good. TarnishedPath^talk 06:16, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request to Translate Articles into English

Thank you for the warm welcome and the opportunity to be part of the English Wikipedia community.

I would like to request permission to translate selected articles from Indonesian (id), Malay, Arabic (ar), and Acehnese (ace) Wikipedias into English.

My main focus is on topics related to history, culture, notable figures, and intellectual heritage from Southeast Asia and the Islamic world. I believe these translations can meaningfully contribute to the global scope of the English Wikipedia.

I am committed to maintaining high translation quality in accordance with Wikipedia's style guidelines, including proper sourcing and attribution. If there are any specific procedures or policies I should follow, I welcome any guidance and support from the community and administrators.

Thank you once again for your kind support. SpaceX464 (talk) 15:52, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ref Desk speculation

Hilo, if you reverted here in order to keep faith with out aversion to offering medical advice or even answers adjacent there-to (which is not something I would necessarily stridently object to), then you also need to remove the comment to which I was responding, and arguably hat the entire thread as problematic. It is not acceptable to have so much speculation in response to an inquiry about the safety of a supposed contraindication / safety issue where such uninformed speculation says, without so much as a single source even, that "Yeah, this is probably perfectly fine." If anything, my response, which is far less based in speculative terms, sought to pull back the laissez-faire responses the OP had received thus far, and urge caution. Again, no objection to the removal of my comment, but I'll only let it pass without objection if you take steps to curtail the rest of the commentary which is far more based in guesswork and laissez-faire about the potential risks involved with chiming in about toxicity issues. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 07:46, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind: I see it was reverted in error and re-reverted since. I should have double checked the revision history before inquiring here. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 07:58, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I stuffed up and don't even know how I did it. Sorry. HiLo48 (talk) 09:01, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]