User talk:Helper201

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Note - I briefly set up the account User:Helper201V2 when I was having trouble logging into this account. That account only ever engaged in talk about my account and never made any edits. I did not make any edits to any pages with it and will not use it to make any edits unless otherwise stated. This is the one and only account I use.

Hello, Helper201! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 19:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply] Getting Started Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community (The Signpost) Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Hello. The accounts submitted to the EC actually have this membership figure on them. There used to be a citation on the page showing this but it has since been removed - apparently the citation isn't open to the general public yet, but it should be shortly (it's actually over-due but the snap general election has slowed down the electoral commission some what). It's a bit of a waste of time to edit the graph only to change it back in a week or two - especially when I know the information to be valid.

The mention of the body does not say that she is dead. But it does connect to her late father’s wish to give her a proper Christian burial. If you are willing to accept that, pls undo previous edit. If not, pls mention in the Talk.

Dear, I have noticed that you edited Awami League page back to original one and I'm delighted that you have done that. Unfortunately, users like Vif12vf|,Nzs9|, and ShrewMoon| take down good edits. I strongly advice you to monitor, Awami League page. It is being vandalized by users that are putting on false information and arguing about topics that they do not understand.2607:FEA8:A75B:7100:5A4:16B3:2839:64DB (talk) 18:47 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Nzs9|, is keeping on editing on Awami league page. He does it and then even has it undone. I would advice to monitor him and report him so he gets a ban from editing on Awami league page.2607:FEA8:A75B:7100:5A4:16B3:2839:64DB (talk) 14:27 20 March 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:A75B:7100:D4B6:874C:1C1F:7A6 (talk)

You have recently edited a page related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Doug Weller talk 17:11, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. I just wanted to let you know that WP:SHORTDESC#Inclusion of dates explicitly states the format for current officeholders should be Currently in office: [Office description] since startyear. I hope this settles our little dispute. Cheers! estar8806 (talk) ★ 21:10, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Helper201:

If you look at my edit closely, you'll see that I didn't remove any cited content at all. See the before and after.

I added: "The party's youth wing is the Republican Socialist Youth Movement (RSYM)", and added the important fact that they "oppose the Good Friday Agreement and the European Union".

I was the one who originally added Marxism-Leninism. I didn't remove it from the lead, I only moved it down a bit.

The only thing I did remove was that it "claims the legacy of the Irish Socialist Republican Party of 1896–1904". The reason is because there's no link between the parties at all, it's only a claim made in one IRSP document, so I don't think it's notable enough for the lead. – Asarlaí ^(talk) 09:44, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even look at Talk:Reform UK? Doug Weller talk 15:59, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Weller, apologies, I missed it when I looked. Helper201 (talk) 16:02, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It happens. No problem. Doug Weller talk 16:38, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am fine with the reversions. But what is more left than communism and anarchism? That's as far left as you can get.

Maybe there is an ideology Im not aware of.

Nashhinton (talk) 17:49, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nashhinton it’s just because the matter has received a lot of back and forth editing and edit waring, hence the extensive talk page discussion on the matter. When matters are contested such as this it’s best to wait until a consensus is formed on the matter. The please for this is on the article's talk page. All the best. Helper201 (talk) 18:21, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Helper201, point taken for SYNTH for the EPP's political alignment. However, I still think this is notably misleading because many of the EPP's own parties are clearly right-wing and the description of the EPP as "centre-right" is a mix of historical continuation and distinction with the ECR, which is actually more "hard right" then just right-wing. Now, given the weight of national parties within European parties, how about a mention of factions, under "center-right", indicating that they range from centre-right to right-wing? Julius Schwarz (talk) 17:07, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Julius Schwarz we'd need reliable sources to explicitly state that factions of it range between these, otherwise its WP:SYNTH] and WP:OR. Helper201 (talk) 20:37, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How do you mean? Here, factions are the national member parties. Many of these parties are already listed as right-wing. If we stick to the fact that the EPP is "centre-right" (which I personally dispute, but that's another matter), but indicate that its factions range from centre-right to right-wing, then the fact that the member parties themselves are already noted to be right-wing should suffice, no? I understand the point of SYNTH, but this is a case where we know what the factions are and what their political alignment is. Julius Schwarz (talk) 08:00, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Julius Schwarz, basically we need a source that says the EPP is right-wing and/or that it has right-wing factions. To use the sources listed on each of the individual parties’ pages to imply a position of the EPP would fall under SYNTH. Helper201 (talk) 16:27, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Except this is not to imply a position of the EPP but to clarify that there is a diversity among its members. Julius Schwarz (talk) 18:55, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Julius Schwarz, we still need a source that says it has a right-wing faction or right-wing factions. Helper201 (talk) 18:57, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't get how that's different from the sources saying what political orientation the member parties have. Julius Schwarz (talk) 19:02, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Julius Schwarz, I'd suggest reading what is stated here - WP:SYNTH. We'd be implying a conclusion of how the EPP group is based off of what's cited for its individual members, which falls under synth. I'm not sure if I can expand anymore beyond what I've already said. Helper201 (talk) 19:07, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have read that and I still disagree with your conclusion. You assume that indicating the orientation of factions is implying a conclusion on the party itself. I (along with many others, since this system is found on many pages) think the description of factions provides a fuller picture of the orientation of the party: the EPP is center-right, but it contains factions that go from centre-right to right-wing. And that last part is not SYNTH because it's not an assumption on the party itself. The narrow implementation of this policy, in this case, is detrimental to the quality of the article. Julius Schwarz (talk) 20:08, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Julius Schwarz, the best way to attempt to move on from such an impasse is to seek a consensus on the article's talk page. Helper201 (talk) 21:33, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Julius Schwarz (talk) 04:58, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]