Misleading information is every reason to remove something

The image you restored at Anti-Christian Sentiment is an atheist graffiti encouraging christians to deconvert. Criticizing a religion and encouraging people to leave it, especially if said religion isn't a protected minority, is free speech. To frame it as religious persecution is dishonest and misleading. 46.97.170.199 (talk) 11:39, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a matter for discussion on the article's Talk Page, not here. HiLo48 (talk) 21:29, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article's talk page is dead. I addressed the issue there awhile ago, when I first removed the image. I received no replies except from IP vandals accusing me of "spreading woke agenda" or other such nonsense. 46.97.170.199 (talk) 11:26, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's still not a good reason to ask about this on someone's talk page, whatever state the talk page is in is irrelevant. Harryhenry1 (talk) 12:04, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Task forces at WikiProject Cricket

This message was sent to you because you have been added to the WikiProject Cricket's news mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:58, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2025!

Hello HiLo48, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2025.
Happy editing,
Abishe (talk) 21:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 21:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Welcome

Hi, HiLo48! Thanks for your welcome, but I've been editing here (mostly on the Reference and Help/Teahouse desks) for about 20 years, and have consciously chosen (so far) to do so without creating an Account, for reasons I won't bore you with. Since my IP (once static) is semi-dynamic, I pseudo-sign myself for continuity purposes "{The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195}" 94.6.84.253 (talk) 07:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

Hi Friends

Karcool213 (talk) 13:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Welcoming

Re your welcome, its only me... 203.57.213.243 (talk) 05:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for Simon Townsend

On 21 January 2025, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Simon Townsend, 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. SpencerT•C 20:16, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Herald article

Here's the text of the Herald article on Australia Day:

Australians have strongly backed January 26 as the national day after years of argument about changing the date, lifting support to a clear majority amid calls to enshrine the date in federal law.

Support for January 26 has leapt from 47 to 61 per cent over the past two years despite objections from Indigenous Australians about celebrating the nation’s history on the anniversary of white settlement.

An exclusive survey also shows that 52 per cent of voters back the idea of passing a federal law to make January 26 the official day, a key proposal from Opposition Leader Peter Dutton before the federal election.

The findings mark a shift in sentiment across the electorate after the defeat of the Indigenous Voice at the October 2023 referendum, showing that support for January 26 increased over the period when support for the Voice declined.

While 39 per cent of voters wanted to change the date when asked in January 2023 – a point when the federal government believed there was strong momentum for the Voice – this slipped to 33 per cent in January 2024.

The latest survey, conducted for this masthead by research company Resolve Strategic, shows 24 per cent wanted to change the date when asked over the past week.

Dutton declared this month that one of his first acts as prime minister if he won the election would be to enshrine January 26 in law so that local councils would have to hold events on the day.

“Would we reinstate the requirement for councils to hold citizenship ceremonies on Australia Day? You bet,” he told reporters.

“It’ll be done in the first 100 days and it will be a sign of pride and nationalism in our country. I want us as a population to be united.”

The Australian Citizenship Ceremonies Code, put in place by the current government, sets out rules for local councils to hold Australia Day citizenship events but allows them to conduct them over a period from three days before and after January 26. Dutton said the events should be on January 26.

While dozens of councils have chosen to move the ceremonies from January 26 because of concerns from Indigenous communities, some have since moved them back. In South Australia last September, the City of Unley council voted to restore the event to January 26 after polling the community.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has brushed off questions about the Coalition plan and challenged Dutton to respect January 26 by attending Australia Day events in Canberra this year, including the Australian of the Year announcement on Saturday night.

“Every year it is inspirational, and I look forward to celebrating Australia Day,” he said.

Critics of January 26 have pointed to the history of white settlement, including the racism suffered by First Australians, to argue for a change to the date. Protests on the issue date to the 1930s, when the date was called a “day of mourning” for Indigenous people.

Indigenous leader and Voice advocate Megan Davis said she was not a “change the date” person because the shift would only move rather than resolve a toxic argument.

“The roots of the discontent about Australia Day come from Aboriginal people, it comes from Aboriginal protest, it comes from the failure of the state to grapple with the original grievance, the unfinished business,” she said in an interview.

“So moving the date doesn’t change that. It just moves the same – in my view – concerns and disgruntlement to another day.”

Davis said the Uluru Statement from the Heart, the key document that set out the case for the Voice, was about bringing people together. “It was a statement of peace issued by our people, particularly our old people to the Australian people about moving forward together,” she said.

Conservative advocate John Roskam, a senior fellow at the Institute of Public Affairs, said surveys had shown that Australians wanted practical action to help Indigenous people but did not want an approach that divided the community.

Roskam said this was a factor in the failure of the Voice even though most Australians support recognition for Indigenous people in the Constitution. “People are over the argument. The referendum and the defeat of the Voice have given permission to people to be more honest,” he said.

“None of it takes away from the fact that Australians support recognition. Australians understand the very real challenges, but it’s not going to be achieved by symbolism. And the debate about Australia Day was seen to be a debate about symbolism.”

The Resolve Political Monitor surveyed 1616 eligible voters from Wednesday to Tuesday, generating results with a margin of error of 2.4 per cent. This means the support for January 26 had a clear majority within that error range.

Resolve director Jim Reed said the change in attitude was tied to the Voice referendum and its aftermath.

“While Australians have consistently agreed with the concept of a national day as a time to come together to celebrate what makes life here special, the date and its meaning have been the subject of some debate,” he said.

“We started to see opinions shift to a stronger support for 26th January after the Voice referendum, which acted as a reset on many social issues.

“We now see Australians actively avoiding calls for change that risk division, clinging onto anything that adds to cohesion, and a greater focus on including Aboriginal perspectives and multicultural elements into the national day has done that.”

Macquarie University professor Bronwyn Carlson said there was an annual “circus” over Australia Day and this distracted from “truth-telling” about Indigenous history and white settlement.

“I think the media like to raise this issue every year to continue the circus,” said Carlson, who is a Dharawal woman from NSW. “We have greater things to consider in this world like the rise of white supremacy – and this endless focus on how people want to celebrate a pointless date is tiring.”

The survey found that 51 per cent of Labor voters backed January 26, while 78 per cent of Coalition said the same.

Support for January 26 was sharply different across each age group, however, with only 35 per cent of younger voters – those aged 18 to 34 – in favour of the date. Support was 79 per cent among those aged 55 and older.

Cheers, Will Thorpe (talk) 03:58, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Will Thorpe - Thanks, but my User Talk page is not really the place to discuss this. I also cannot see the actual question asked in that article. With knowing what the question was, results are close to meaningless. HiLo48 (talk) 04:08, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk: Donald Trump lead sentence discussion

Hi HiLo48,

I hope this message finds you well. I wanted to reach out about a consensus debate currently happening on Donald Trump’s page, as it mirrors a similar situation we encountered during Joe Biden’s presidency. Four years ago, we agreed on a consensus to keep the lead sentence format, which I believe was both fair and sensible. Specifically, the line for Joe Biden was: "...who has been the 46th and current president of the United States since 2021." Looking back, I see that you were in favor of maintaining this as the status quo. Talk:Joe Biden/Archive 15#RfC: Should we say he is "current" president in the lead, or not?

I believe we should apply this same structure to Donald Trump’s page, just as we did for Joe Biden and Barack Obama before him, to ensure consistency and clarity. This format clearly conveys the order ("47th"), incumbency ("current"), and start date ("since 2025"), which helps maintain uniformity across presidential biographies.

Given your involvement and support in that earlier consensus, your insights would be incredibly valuable in the current discussion. It’s important that we uphold the same standards regardless of the officeholder, and I’d appreciate it if you could weigh in, share your thoughts, and cast a vote. Here is the current discussion and vote underway: Talk:Donald Trump, Superseding consensus #50, sentences 1 and 2

Thanks a lot, and I hope you’ll consider contributing. TimeToFixThis (talk) 07:47, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for Gerald Ridsdale

On 19 February 2025, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Gerald Ridsdale, 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. Stephen 02:52, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:HiLo48
No tags for this post.