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
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines

The Community
Things to do

Helper201, you are invited to the Co-op!

Co-op logo
Hi there! Helper201, you are invited to The Co-op, a gathering place for editors where you can find mentors to help you build and improve Wikipedia. If you're looking for an editor who can help you out, please join us! I JethroBT (I'm a Co-op mentor)

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 22:44, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

March 2015

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Green Party of the United States has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

You're invited to the Teahouse.

Hello Helper201, thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! I want to invite you to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. I hope you see you there! I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding ((U|I dream of horses)) to your message. @ 02:29, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

March 2015

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Plaid Cymru has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 23:36, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

April 2015

Information icon
Please do not use styles that are unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in Green Party of the United States. There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Thank you. ☾Loriendrew☽ (ring-ring) 00:53, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 8 May

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:38, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May 2015

You can't just go around changing the ideology of Labour Party articles based on your own opinion. Please read up on WP:BRD and use the talk page if you want to propose changes, But if you do then you will need to source it and you should check out previous discussions. Whatever you are verging on edit warring ----Snowded TALK 18:27, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The changes were made in equal proportion to the current information supplied. Another perspective of Labour's political position was included and then when rejected a citation was asked for the current statement of centre-left. The current information on the parties political position is based off historical values and there is insufficient evidence provided to claim The UK Labour party is currently and categorically (as of May 2015) centre-left and encompasses no other position on the political scale. If people wish to claim the party is of that position (and no other), recent credible evidence must be supplied, otherwise the position given is as much of an opinion as others that change its status to other positions which are just as credible e.g. centre-left to centre.

Infobox stats

League stats only in infobox. Mattythewhite (talk) 07:33, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wales Green Party

There is a discussion at Talk:Green Party of England and Wales#Should Wales Green Party become a standalone article? to establish if Wales Green Party (which currently redirects to a section inside Green Party of England and Wales) is notable enough to be restored as a standalone article. As you either took part in the AfD, or are a significant contributor to either Wales Green Party or Green Party of England and Wales, you are being contacted to see if you have input to the discussion. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:39, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SP polling page

Hi Helper201, I've reversed your edit to Opinion polling in the Scottish Parliament election, 2016. You explained your edit: "as [the SSP] is running under the organization of RISE for this election, its polling figures are not independent of RISE." This is not true. YouGov continue to prompt for "Scottish Socialist Party" in polling intention rather than "RISE". Therefore, it would be inaccurate to report the latest poll from YouGov as showing 1% for RISE. That is why I combined the columns and included the logo for both organisations.

Zcbeaton (talk) 18:08, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Respect Party, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Socialist Workers Party. 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) 11:27, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Signing your talkpage comments

Hi, I'd just like to remind you to sign your talkpage comments using ~~~~ at the end of the post. ((u|ABC)) is used to alert other users that you are mentioning them or replying to them. When you used ((u|Helper201)) on Talk:Japanese Communist Party the other day it looked like someone was replying to you, not you replying to someone else. Regards, AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 05:53, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Scale of justice 2.svg
Hello, Helper201. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition

Hi. All of the political parties which made up the TCSC alliance are explicitly Trotskyist (Socialist Party, Socialist Party Scotland, Socialist Workers Party and Solidarity). The TCSC have been described as far-left by The Times and the International Business Times,[1][2] so it seems reasonable to include them and categorise them under the Trotskyist section. Claíomh Solais (talk) 10:28, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


  1. ^ Fisher, Lucy (7 August 2015). "Revealed: Labour's hard-left infiltrators". The Times. Retrieved 25 March 2016. ((cite news)): Unknown parameter |subscription= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (help)
  2. ^ Silvera, Ian (14 September 2015). "Far-left TUSC seeks anti-austerity electoral pact with Jeremy Corbyn's Labour". International Business Times. Retrieved 25 March 2016.

Yes, but just because all the parties that make up TUSC identify Troksyism as one of their ideologies, does not mean the group itself has adopted the ideology. All the parties that make up TUSC have other ideologies besides Trotskyism. It doesn't mean they choose to promote or espouse that ideology, just because they have it in common. The group has also been described as left-wing by other media outlets, please read the introduction on the page. Helper201 (talk) 10:35, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're missing the point. We have mainstream media describing the TUSC as far-left, literally each and every one of it's constituent parties are explicitly Trotskyists. In our article on the TUSC it is mentioned with references that they are a far-left group, so they are evidently of interest to a template and article on the wider British far-left in general. The same cam be said of the Respect Party. In our own article on the topic, it is mentioned that they are described as far-left by mainstream academia, in books published by the likes of Palgrave Macmillan. So they too are of interest to such an article/template. If you disagree with those descriptions themselves then it would make sense for you to attempt to get consensus to remove the description of far-left from those specific articles themselves. Claíomh Solais (talk) 10:50, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, please read the introduction on the TUSC page. There are citations for left-wing too, one of which is BBC news (as seen in the introduction), of which you could not get more mainstream of media. I'm pretty sure I left the far-left tag on that article, because yes, it is seen that way but some, but also left-wing by others, the coalition itself sits somewhere between the two. However the other tags you've been making have been absolute nonsense and extremely aggravating, many of these parties, such as the Respect Party were or are either left-wing or in other cases there are simply no citations supporting they are far-left. If you look at the info box on the right hand side of the Respect Party's page it clearly says 'left-wing' with multiple supporting citations.
Yes, there are citations presented from reliable sources for both left-wing and far-left. Being also described by some sources as left-wing doesn't cancel out sources describing them as far-left. These parties are to the left of the most left-wing part of mainstream British politics - ie, the left-wing of the Labour Party and the Green Party. While Respect probably only just make the grade as far-left, we have sources describing them as such and they openly stood as part of an electoral alliance with the SWP (which is Trotskyist) and in Europe were part of the European Anti-Capitalist Left, which is predominantly Trotskyist. So they are part of the history of the British far-left movement, whichever way it is looked at. Claíomh Solais (talk) 11:13, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I know, hence why I left the tag on the TUSC page, because it had citations for far-left. TUSC is more to the left than Labour or the Green's, yes. However being left of these parties does not automatically make you far-left, that is nonsense. There can be a centre-left party that is more left than another centre-left party without being left-wing, same for left-wing without being far-left. You can be out of the main political parties and still be left-wing, which most definitely is different to being far-left. Before adding this tag it should be clear in the info box on the right hand side of the page that the party is at least partially far-left and be supported by citations. Don't just go mass placing it around on pages with no supporting citations. Just because a party is on the left and not mainstream, have anyone elected or in the media spotlight does not make it far-left. You're acting like anything to the left of Labour and not a main political party is somehow far-left. Also parties can be anti-capitalist and not be far-left. You can't automatically assume a certain ideology defines a party's whole political position. Look at Syriza for instance, they are anti-capitalist, yet as seen in the info box on the right hand side of the page (supported by citations), they are a left-wing party. Helper201 (talk) 11:34, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you shouldn't use citations that require a subscription. All citations should be freely and easily accessible. Helper201 (talk) 11:51, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to butt in here, but please read WP:PAYWALL. Sources do not have to be freely accessible on Wikipedia at all. HelgaStick (talk) 15:56, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Political Orientation of Tabloid Newspapers

Please see the talk page for 'List of newspapers in the United Kingdom' Sylar78 (talk) 22:09, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Wikiproject!

Hello, Helper201! I saw you recently edited a page related to the Green party and green politics. There is a new WikiProject that has been formed - WikiProject Green Politics and I thought this might be something you'd be interested in joining! So please head on over to the project page and take a look! Thanks for your time. Me-123567-Me (talk) 18:27, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

January 2017

Information icon
Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Caroline Lucas. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. Charles (talk) 19:40, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

redirect proposal

There is a proposal to redirect the recently created Far-left politics in the United Kingdom. As you previously commented on it you may want to [Talk:Far-left politics in the United Kingdom contribute] ----Snowded TALK 06:03, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

UK Newspapers

Hello, thank you for assisting me in citing Newspaper ISSN 2396-9520.

I understand you wanted the websites for the paper that verify the print circulation: - Online versions of the media group's papers can be found: and The Company The International Press and Media Group is showing on Company's House as Active with SICC codes indicating newspaper printing and uk distribution. In addition I emailed the company for proof of license and received evidence of such, I am sure anyone can do the same.

From what I can find out the Paper is in national circulation, just not evenly distributed with a much larger distribution in London.

The company shows up as printing in the uk on UK 250, Companies House, Linked In, Twitter, Instagram, it's own websites etc.

Happy to try and help more if I can.

EU News (talk) 15:07, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


You added a reference to Christian Democratic Appeal from Cram101. However, Cram101 is not reliable as it copies and paraphrases from Wikipedia. I've removed the source. Fences&Windows 20:43, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For Justice Party (South Korea)

Already discussion is finishied. See the [1] and [2]. Thanks. --Idh0854 (talk) 10:21, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, Helper201! I saw you recently edited a page related to the Green party and green politics. There is a new WikiProject that has been formed - WikiProject Green Politics and I thought this might be something you'd be interested in joining! So please head on over to the project page and take a look! Thanks for your time. Me-123567-Me (talk) 16:41, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

March 2017

Information icon Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to List of federal political parties in Canada does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → check Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Me-123567-Me (talk) 21:17, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CPC Infobox Ideology

Hi, I noticed you were involved in the debate over infobox ideology in the article Conservative Party of Canada. The page is currently locked because of an edit war, and no attempt has been made on the talk page to resolve this. I would to thus invite you to contribute to the discussion at Talk:Conservative_Party_of_Canada#Ideology so the page can be unlocked and constructive editing can continue.--Jay942942 (talk) 22:43, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]


I see you find the concept ultranationalism useful as a description, which I completely disagree with. Any ideology can exist in an extreme form, that doesn't warrant specific articles or inserting it as a description in other articles. Especially not in a context where its obvious that the party in question are unlikely to be moderate.--Batmacumba (talk) 08:35, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I really can't see your problem here. Yes ideologies exist in extreme forms, and is it not important to distinguish those extreme forms? The more accurate or specific an article can be, the better. Helper201 (talk) 02:33, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Life Is Strange

Hi. Before you go back and make the good-faith removal of a category in this article, I'd like to ask where your source is for the characters' ages? if you would like, we can take this discussion over to the article's talk page. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 19:00, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I did not seek to change what you did when you reverted my edit as I assumed the evidence I have would be regarded as unreliable. I removed the catagory off of personal experience having completed the game and having read through Wiki's but thought they would likely be regarded as unreliable. I did find one character to be under 18, but the main characters are well evidenced of being over 18 (Max being 18 and Chloe being 19). The story does mainly focus on these two characters and thus I would not regard it as coming-of-age. Helper201 (talk) 19:06, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it was Lordtobi that reverted you the second time. Just FYI, Wikipedia does not accept original research. Please be prepared to cite a source for your edits where applicable. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 17:19, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I know, I've been on Wikipedia quite a while. It was only a removal of a catagory, of which a claim (such as a catagory claim) should have evidence to be there in the first place, I couldn't see any. Removal of uncited content is by no means breaking any rules. Helper201 (talk) 00:06, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pirate Party UK

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.

Party for Socialism and Liberation

Here is a direct quote from the party's official program:

Achieving fully developed socialism, a goal that has not yet been achieved anywhere, will open the way to communism and the end of class society. Communism will also mean the “withering away” of the repressive state, which only came into being with the rise of class society.

This political party is Leninist, supports the Cuban Communist Party, is sympathetic historically with the former Soviet Union, and is an offshoot from the Worker's World Party, long known as a communist party. It has never repudiated communism.

This justifies categorizing it as a communist party. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:30, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'Will open the way to communism'. There is no explicit statement here the party would implement communism. I can understand how it could be interrupted as this being implied, but unless its directly stated, it can't be placed here as if it is fact. Please see WP:SYNTHESIS (especially in regarded to the split). As said before, a lot of this information you give appears to be original research, which is not applicable by Wikipedia's standards. Helper201 (talk) 04:38, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain why you have removed a direct quotation from the party platform, properly referenced, from the article. Can you cite any sources that say this is not a communist party? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:54, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This party makes it crystal clear that it is a Marxist-Leninist organization, which is the ideology of communism. To refuse to include their overt self identification in the article is unencyclopedic, in my opinion. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:07, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please read up on communism and Marxism-Leninism. While they are often implemented simultaneously and are relevant to one another, they are not the same. There's still a lot of reading between the lines here. Helper201 (talk) 05:14, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, I will not stop, although I will discuss to try to reach consensus with you. With all due respect, I have been "reading up" on communism and Marxism-Leninism for 50 years and have studied the history of many such parties. Communism is their ultimate goal and Marxism-Leninism is the current ideology. This particilar party openly embraces Marxism-Leninism and describes communism as the ultimate goal of socialist revolution carried out by the armed working class, which they openly favor. I have read their newspaper, attended one of their street demonstrations, and listened to speeches by leading members. I am absolutely certain that they are a communist, Marxist-Leninist party and I have referenced public party documents readily available online. Why do you resist descriptions that are verifiable and neutral? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:39, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly what you are not doing. You have been going and making changes mid-discussion regardless, totally ignoring and overruling what's being talked about here. As I have outlined, a lot of what you are saying falls exactly under Wikipedia:No original research. As regard to your last question, I have answered this numerous times as falling under WP:SYNTHESIS. This is just circling now. Helper201 (talk) 05:46, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain how it is synthesis to describe a party as Marxist-Leninist when its own party publications openly describe it that way? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:05, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I saw nothing in that source that explicitly said the party is Marxist-Leninist. Helper201 (talk) 06:10, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please suggest alternate wording, then. In my opinion, you are splitting hairs and denying the obvious. We can get a third opinion or formulate an RFC. Which do you prefer? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:26, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean Request For Comments? If you want to take this through an official Wikipedia body then OK. I think that would be much better than just a third opinion, which doesn't hold anywhere near as much weight. Helper201 (talk) 06:35, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please suggest alternate wording that accurately summarizes the party documents that I have linked to. Thank you. I am the one providing possible wording and you are proposing no alternatives. If you cannot suggest any wording that we can agree on, then I will formulate a Request for Comment, but I need to get some sleep now. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:04, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies but I have no desire to seek to add to the page. I think it is largely alright the way it is. Helper201 (talk) 07:12, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

July 2017

Information icon
Hello. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. This means that editors do not own articles, including ones they create, and should respect the work of their fellow contributors on Party for Socialism and Liberation. If you create or edit an article, remember that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. TM 10:49, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, I've noticed that you have made more than 3 reverts to this article in the last 24 hours. Please refrain from further reverts or I will report this incident.--TM 10:50, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, why could we not discuss this prior to you making mass changes? Secondly, I am fine with the article being changed if reliable sources support this. I see the new article you have added does support the party by specifically stating it as Marxist-Leninist. I'm just about to look into the source to check its credibility. I don't see why you couldn't have talked to me first or contributed to the discussion on the talk page. You are making a lot of changes without giving reason, such as reinstating it being communist etc. Also the the other source provided breaks Wikipedia's synthesis, so should not be re-included. Helper201 (talk) 10:57, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
With six reverts in the last 24 hours, it seems as though you are well beyond talking. You've decided what can and cannot be in the article. I've added a third party source which backs up the common sense argument contrary to the one you've been making.--TM 11:04, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I gave good reason for why I made those changes. I would also like to point out the other editor was the one making changes mid-discussion, in most cases before I had even had a chance to reply to their comment. Also as I said, I accepted the third-party source, yet you give no good reason for re-instating the other source, or why you have included it among the list of communist parties. Your ridicule in terms of implying my argument is not "common sense" as opposed to yours I find unpleasant and unhelpful. Helper201 (talk) 11:15, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Workers' Party of Belgium

I have noticed that three times already you have undone an edit by me on the article Workers' Party of Belgium. More specifically it's about whether the WPB is communist party or not. I see no evidence to conclude that the current party is communist, the party itself doesn't claim to be communist either. So I wonder why you keep insisting to describe the party as a communist party, instead of opting for the much wider accepted label of socialism, a label the WPB itself uses. I'm going to revert it to socialist again, if you want to put it back to communist, then you should provide a source that shows that the WPB in its current form can be classified as a communist party.

Sincerely HistorXIII

Hey, HistorXIII. Apologies, I shouldn't have done so. I shall have a look into evidence for both socialism and communism and see what has supporting evidence. I appreciate that you took the time to come to my talk page and talk to me about this without being hostile. I'm going through a lot of really bad stuff right now, not that that's any excuse, just that it means more to me that you came and respectfully put across your point of view. Thank you. Helper201 (talk) 13:59, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]


The game developer's nationality does not constitute strong national ties, especially such that you should feel emboldened to drive-by engvar-war across multiple articles. Please form a consensus for widespread changes before embarking on a crusade, against the recommendations of policy. I am no longer watching this pageping if you'd like a response czar 22:53, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There was no reason given for using US dating systems. Wikipedia dating systems are usually down to the discretion of editors, as for most page types there is no specific required format. I gave good reason as to why this version is more appropriate. There seems to be large amount of Americanisation of Wikipedia pages for no good reason. Unless the page is related to something to do with the US I see no reason to use the MDY format, as the US is the only country in the world to use this format.
Date format by country. Helper201 (talk) 23:00, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why could you not even give me a first minutes to reply before reverting all my edits? Helper201 (talk) 23:01, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Since you are not a new editor, you know about the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and how, when your proposed edits are contested (read: reverted), your next step is taking the proposal to discussion, not to wantonly revert the revert, which is edit warring. That warning aside, as I already said, there is no strong national tie to the subject to warrant any mass action on dates, and even if you thought there was, the relevant policy is to retain the existing date/engvar format until some consensus overturns it. Which isn't even to mention the disreputable practice of making large, drive-by changes (on articles you haven't edited), changes explicitly against our common guidelines, leaving no edit summaries and then edit warring those changes. So no, there is no need to wait to revert those changes. (On a more common sense note, I have no idea how you think that Donkey Kong 64, a featured article reviewed several times, would change its date format on your whim...) Please do not make systematic drive-by edits without consensus. The policy on changing date formats exists precisely to stop your type of unilateral action. If you don't like it, take it up with the community, whereupon you'll find why the policy is what it is. I am no longer watching this page—ping if you'd like a response czar 05:06, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't call a handful of pages "mass action". Yes there is no strong national tie, which works both ways, it means there is no strong justification for using the US dating system either. As I said, there is more reason for using this dating system, as these games have no connection with the US and the US is the only country to use this dating system, so I don't see what reason you have for being so protective of keeping it as it is. Just because something hasn't been changed in a long time does not make it any more correct. I've seen plenty of stuff on Wikipedia that hasn't been cited in years (sometimes going back to 2012 from 2017) even when its been edited multiple times. This in no way justifies its inclusion. And I wouldn't call making dating format changes "large drive by" edits. I honestly don't see why you are being so protective of keeping things as they are (and not giving any good reason why using the US dating system is appropriate in any way). As said, the vast majority of the world does not use the US dating system, so why if the page has no connection to the US should this be maintained? Helper201 (talk) 18:34, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, six unrelated pages in succession is systemic. I already linked WP:DATERET above—can't be any clearer that the existing format is retained when there is no reason (e.g., a strong national tie) to change the English/date variation. Strong national ties are physical places and battles that take place in a specific region/nation. If you have a problem with the policy, take it up with the policy page, but don't think that your edits against that consensus will go unchecked. czar 22:49, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well they are all video game related aren't they? So Rome Total War, that game certainly represents battles in a specific region, by specific nations, in Europe, does it not? There is no perfect clarity on what does and does not constitute a strong national tie. I plan to take this to further discussion, please could you give me the link? Also I have been trying to discuss this. The only "consensus" I've broken is Wikipedia ruling, which since reverting your reverts I haven't reverted again, nor made any more date changes and have been trying to discuss with you, despite being mainly just being dictated Wikipedia rules. May I also point out the MOS:TIES does also state "or consensus on the article's talk page", which as I said, I've been trying to make, despite only being rejected by you, and just because of Wikipedia ruling. You haven't been open to discussing this and I really don't see the point in this "don't think that your edits against that consensus will go unchecked", as like I've said, I haven't done so and I really think this hostile and threatening manner is highly unhelpful. Helper201 (talk) 02:48, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

August 2017

Information icon
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Portuguese Communist Party. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. B.Lameira (talk) 22:26, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So what you disagree with constitutes to vandalism, despite not even getting a supporting opinion when resorting to contacting another editor to support you against me? Why could you not use the talk page as I asked to discuss this reasonably, rather than just reverting my edits without evidence to support your argument? You have provided no evidence to prove you are right and you have no right to call my edits vandalism or claim to be any more correct than I am. What you are doing is basically edit warring and what you have changed has stood for a long time without rejection from other editors. Helper201 (talk) 22:32, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, another point. Threats on Wikipedia get you no where, so please don't use them. I noted that The Guardian piece was an opinion piece after you mentioned it and I did not notice this when I added it (hence why I did not reverse that edit). Second, you have no consensus for your edits either and you have been the one removing the label of far-left, which has long stood on the page, you are the one seeking the change. And we were both giving points as to where the party stands, I regard neither yours nor mine as "bias", hence why I wished to take the discussion to talk, as when a conflict arises this is how things should be sorted, not by reverting and re-reverting constantly or making threats to other users. Helper201 (talk) 22:44, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You have quite a long history of edit warring, your actions are not new. Without rejection? Did you happen to think most editors do not have a clue about what the party's positions are? Your edits are not encyclopaedic and you make yourself look bad with your persistent history of conflicts in here, you inserted an op-ed article as reference, how can you say your behaviour is not disruptive, with the only goal of forcing your biased POV on other editors who do not happen to agree with you? --B.Lameira (talk) 22:39, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is your judgment from scanning my page. I would disagree, there has been a lot of vandalism going on by certain editors and people that have not been willing to discuss via talk page, regardless that is not relevant to this matter. I was the one that offered to go to talk. You are the one who has only reverted and re-reverted and threatened. Helper201 (talk) 22:52, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am not threatening you, do not play as so defensive, I am only warning that your disruptive behaviour does not match the spirit of consensus that makes up Wikipedia, any user can issue such message as I did. Try to seek consensus, if possible, as up for now, you do not have. I am not always in here, hence I did not notice it at first. Cheers! B.Lameira (talk) 22:54, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, that is why I wished to discuss it via the talk page, as your changes to what had long been on the page had no supporting evidence, nor consensus. Helper201 (talk) 23:01, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits

Hello, please stop making unconstructive edits on pages of political parties. Party ideology can be sourced by proper citations, but by the wiki policy, it is not necessary. Only questioned source request of proper information can be later removed. Thank you. --ThecentreCZ (talk) 17:44, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Another question, why are you obsessed with capital letters? --ThecentreCZ (talk) 18:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Obsessed? Not at all. The section within the info box that says e.g. "Right-wing to far-right", this is a sentence, so then why should the second position be capitalised? This is not correct grammar as a political position should not be capitalised unless it begins a sentence. Only the first letter of the first word needs to be a capital in this case. As to your other point made above this one, I really don't see what you are getting at. I have been editing political pages on Wikipedia for a long time and it's primarily what I do on here. Any content unsourced can be removed, claims should always be made using reliable sources. WP:USI. If you want to make constructive criticism please be specific. Thank you. Helper201 (talk) 01:24, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Democratic Progressive Party

Hi Helper201, how is the information in the infobox a sentence? Thanks, Ezhao02 (talk) 01:29, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I'm not sure how it isn't. If it's a list or just one word, like a bullet point, then I wouldn't say so. However if it appears to form a sentence (i.e. it's more than one word and isn't a list), such as something is "from here to here" then I would say its safe to assume its a sentence and should follow standard grammar rules for sentences. Otherwise if there are no grammar rules, anything could go, every word could be a capital, or other such things that wouldn't appear to show any reason. Cheers, and thank you for taking the time to message me. Helper201 (talk) 12:07, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:British Eurosceptics


Category:British Eurosceptics has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. AusLondonder (talk) 01:16, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

September 2017

Just a note - you failed to sign your comment at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 September 25 AusLondonder (talk) 03:43, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NPD article revert

Hey. I'm a little confused by your revert on the NPD article. Brown is generally accepted as the customary colour of the NPD by Wikipedia itself, hence the template colour being a dark brown. As for a citation; the CDU article doesn't have one, and all Die Linke has is a link to some election results. JackWilfred (talk) 22:06, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The only use of dark brown I can see is the outline of the info box, which as far as I'm aware any editor can change. All the logos and images provided in the article only show the use of a red, white and black colour scheme. Helper201 (talk) 22:18, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've provided a citation for NPD's customary colour being brown. Thanks for your quick response. JackWilfred (talk) 23:28, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Kane

Thank you for showing me the Kane biography, which indeed comes from the respected sports writer Frank Worrall. Can that be cited, even though we do not know the page number? Harambe Walks (talk) 21:27, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem and I appreciate the thanks. I don't see why not, as you said, its a respected source. I have found the right page before via a Google search, its only a couple of pages in as far as I recall. However, the preview I used on Google Books didn't seem to give the number for each corresponding page. So I'm not sure where exactly page 1 begins (as it can differ for some books) to thereby deduce which page number the quote is on exactly, in order to then reference it properly. Perhaps there is a way to see the page numbers and I just missed it. I saw there are a few more Daily Mail citations on the page that also need replacing (and were marked as such a few months ago). I've managed to replace another one, any help replacing the rest would also be appreciated. Cheers. Helper201 (talk) 02:58, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Radical leftist

If you would like a community consensus on this redirect, please take it to WP:RFD. Blanking a redirect is not a solution to removing the target, despite your reasoning being appropriate in the matter. Since I have reverted your blanking, I cannot take the redirect to RFD myself, as it would be bad faith. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 01:12, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Minor parties on election pages

Hello. Instead of reverting edits, it is always a good idea to discuss the subject on the article's talk page. I have added reasoning for removing minor parties from the 2017 elections article on the talk page. I would love to hear your reasonings, so we can come to an agreement instead of ending in an edit war. Kaffe42 (talk) 19:42, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Broadsheet and former broadsheet newspapers - Updated The Guardian political stance

Hi mate. I changed the political leaning of The Guardian from centre-left to left-wing, sourcing this YouGov poll, However, you reversed it (without Talk or any further sourcing?) A newspaper, such as the Guardian, may claim to be 'centre-left', but if that is not reflected in it's content, then it's not true. The newspaper (and website) have clearly been moving further to the left in recent years, as evidenced by this poll, no? Thanks mate John arneVN (talk) 05:17, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a poll of the opinions of the UK general public, peoples opinions are not what is taken into regard when deciding the position of a paper. What is taken into regard is evidence from reliable sources, especially academics. I would highly recommend you take this to the paper's talk page before making any changes. Helper201 (talk) 11:55, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi mate - I have taken it to the Talkpage. A Yougov poll is better than nothing, surely? - I have put forward a source for the Guardian being left-wing (particularly socially, rather than politically - if we describe other papers as right-wing, the Guardian, in my opinion, should be left-wing), and so far nothing has been put forward to suggest that it should be centre-left - I would also argue that public opinion is very important with regards to discussing a papers political leaning (given that these spectrums are always moving). Even the Guardians own Wiki page describes it as "The newspaper's reputation as a platform for liberal and left-wing editorial has led to...". Also - I saw above that you changed some date formats to the standard format, rather than the American-only format - good on ya - Wiki has been slowly Americanizing lately - and we have to stop it. John arneVN (talk) 07:54, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking it to the talk page. Yeah, evidence is always important, however in this case I wouldn't say public opinion is evidence. For example if 99% of people believed all sand was red, would that make it red? Like that example this is a case where public opinion does not equal fact. I can see a case for the paper potentially being socially left-wing, but definitely not politically or economically, in these cases I'd definitely say centre-left. The quote you mentioned to me almost seems contradictory, being in western Europe and the UK liberalism is largely associated with the centre of the political spectrum. Maybe that is another reason for it being labelled centre-left? As it says liberal and left-wing the in-between of centre and left-wing is centre-left. I believe this has been discussed a lot on The Guardian's talk page over the years (these discussions I'd assume have now mostly been archived, so it may be hard to find them) but I believe the centre-left tag has been developed through consensus over the years. I think it would take quite a bit of evidence to form a consensus on the papers talk page to change this. Helper201 (talk) 20:22, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your disruptive editing on Socialist Party (Ireland)

Please end your disruptive editing warring on this page by constantly reverting. You are ignoring plain reason and material that is self-evidently true. You do not have consensus for this behaviour. You have ignored the comments of other editors on similar and related talk pages. This is a clear case of WP:ICAN'THEARYOU. Your persisntent reverting is extremely disruptive and unhelpful behavior. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:19, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, I have ignored!? You were the one who was asked to take the matter to talk (and simply ignored it entirely), you are the one who is constantly reverting content that has long stood on this page. Your 'self-evident' claim is nonsense. One ideology of a party does not make it self-evidently fit into only one political position. As clearly outlined here Wikipedia:Edit warring, where there is dispute it should be taken to the talk page. Helper201 (talk) 16:26, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Scale of justice 2.svg
Hello, Helper201. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Date formats

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers says:

editors should not change an article from one guideline-defined style to another without a substantial reason unrelated to mere choice of style, and that revert-warring over optional styles is unacceptable.[a] If discussion cannot determine which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor.

-- Toddy1 (talk) 05:39, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for the change was that the page has a strong connection (birth in that country) to a country that uses dmy, not mdy, of which only the USA uses the mdy format. Helper201 (talk) 06:15, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please could you post something on Talk:Ksenia Sobchak explaining your reasoning and showing some evidence.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:12, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned it in the description of the edit I made. It is due to her having a strong national tie to a country that does not use the month day year dating format and having no connection with America, the only country that uses mdy as its main dating format. As you probably know Russia (of which she has a strong national tie to) uses the day month year dating format (dmy). MOS:DATETIES. MOS:TIES. Thanks for your time. Helper201 (talk) 21:22, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Bolton

Why is the Daily Mail not a reliable source — particularly when Bolton has admitted it in the article in question — when newspapers are routinely used on this website as references? Vabadus91 (talk) 20:35, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply] Helper201 (talk) 11:30, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just a question on Scottish independence article

Your edit stated all the rest except the SNP favor a republic, does that include RISE? I haven't honestly looked into most beyond the Greens regarding the smaller parties position on this. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 20:02, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Gilmore. RISE are cited on their Wikipedia page as being in favor of an indepdent Scottish republic - 'The party set out their vision of a Trident-free independent Scottish republic' (three paragraphs up from the electoral performance section). However, I don't think they are listed on the Scottish independence page as they are not widely recognised as a major political party, due to not having held any seats. Helper201 (talk) 20:12, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks C. W. Gilmore (talk) 20:33, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update for Suicide in the United Kingdom page

Hi, I updated the tables and the text giving the latest figures for UK suicide numbers from the latest ONS page available (published Dec 2017, so probably the most up-to-date available until Dec 2018). If you think that's enough, do you want to remove the 'Update' tag you put on it? If not, what else can you think of? Peace Makes Plenty (talk) 14:16, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the update tag. Thank you for your contributions. Helper201 (talk) 16:20, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tears Don't Fall:

A composer is some one who writes music only, a lyricist is somebody who writes lyrics only and a songwriter is somebody who can write both. Under these circumstances are you sure your edit was right? Shouldn't Tuck be defined as lyricist, too. NB For practical purposes calling them all songwriters works. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:25, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I could well be wrong, I'm not that experienced with editing music related articles. From the sounds of it you know what you are talking about. I'll leave it up to whatever you think is best. Thanks for notifying me. Helper201 (talk) 23:15, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Plainlist in infoboxes

I was unaware that plainlist caused issues on mobile devices. Is this only when used within infoboxes? This seems strange to me, as everything I've read has suggested plainlist over HTML linebreaks. Can you point me to the documentation that says otherwise? - Plandu (talk) 15:51, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm aware it is only the case within infoboxes. The problem is the space between the lines is usually wider than a usual line break using plainlist. br is widely used in infoboxes to break lines and works perfectly well. This is from my own experience and what I've heard from other editors in the past. Helper201 (talk) 18:58, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am well aware of the spacing issue with infoboxes. I edit almost exclusively on mobile and, in fact, I find it rather convenient for spotting lists separated with <br>. Perhaps you don't understand why we use ((plainlist)) / ((unbulleted list)): it's primarily to help those (e.g. blind readers) who use screen readers, which ignore line breaks, but will explicitly describe lists if they're marked up as such. "Accessibility" means, in particular, accessibility to those with disabilities; perhaps (like me) you don't have a problem with accessibility, but that's no reason to make the encyclopedia actively harder for others to use. If you feel the spacing is an aesthetic problem, you should bring it up at the village pump. Hairy Dude (talk) 00:41, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[Next welsh devolution referendum]]

Hi. I've reverted your PROD of Next welsh devolution referendum. I would suggest using WP:Redirects for Discussion for this page. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:35, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Express

Hi Helper201. You claimed in your edit summary here that "The Express is also not regarded as a reliable source by Wikipedia standards." I wonder where that might be written as policy, as I've never seen it? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:54, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no specific policy against this newspaper in particular. The reason I removed it is that it appears it may fall under WP:QUESTIONABLE, and not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable sources. In my experience on Wikipedia many tabloids are not generally regarded as reliable and I have often over the years seen this one removed for not being regarded as a reliable source for a citation. Helper201 (talk) 20:05, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is actually probably more relevant in this case - Wikipedia:Potentially unreliable sources (please see bullet point four under the News media section in particular). Helper201 (talk) 20:15, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Unless a newspaper is actually named, it seems to be largely a case of subjective opinion. But the description at the Daily Express article is tabloid, not tabloid. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:24, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Man, what is your problem? I live in Romania and I know better. The party as a whole is not socially conservative. According to sources, it supports gay rights like marriage and civil unions. Is a party like that rightist?--Voloh28 (talk) 07:56, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here on Wikipedia we go by sources, not WP:OR. All claims should be backed up with reliable sources that do not break WP:SYNTHESIS. Also please do not confuse political positions and political ideologies, they are different. I'm not trying to argue an opinion, I'm going by what reliable sources specifically claim and that's how it should be on Wikipedia, editors should maintain a neutral position and go by facts and what is specifically stated by reliable sources. Helper201 (talk) 05:17, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply] as a source

Hi Helper201 . I noticed that you recently used as a source for information in a biography article, Candice Swanepoel. Please note that there is general consensus that does not meet the reliable sourcing criteria for the inclusion of personal information in such articles. (See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_153#Is_famousbirthdays.com_a_reliable_source_for_personal_information). IMDB and are similary unreliable. If you disagree, let's discuss it. Thanks. --Ronz (talk) 03:38, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I was not aware of that. Helper201 (talk) 11:26, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Home nations not British?

As far as I know, the current convention is to call someone by their home nation within the UK, regardless of the remit of their work. Michelle Gomez is famous because of her work on a BBC Wales production (Doctor Who) but she's a Scottish actress, not British. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 00:17, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm aware this is a different case. Gomez has not been a representative of either Scotland, Wales or Britain in any sort of competition, tournament, event etc. Therefore it makes the most sense to identify her with her home nation, as its the most specific, and because she has not opted to be a representative of Britain or the United Kingdom in any sport, competition, event etc. With sportspeople all the major cases I can think of where someone has represented Britain or the United Kingdom they are referred to as British. In any case where the person in question has not been a representative of Britain or the United Kingdom, then it makes the most sense to identify them with their home nation. Helper201 (talk) 00:35, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This should hopefully be helpful here - Wikipedia:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom#Sport. Helper201 (talk) 00:41, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Life Is Strange - Mental Illness

Ok, yeah, forgot about those, I was thinking that you were referring to Jefferson being a psychopath (which, however likely, was only claimed by Max). Thanks! =) byteflush Talk 21:38, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, thanks for getting in contact. :) Helper201 (talk) 21:41, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Justice Party (South Korea) Socialism tag

Hello! I was wondering why you decided to remove the "Socialism" tag from the "Justice Party" page. The party has its roots in the indigenous socialist movements in South Korea from the '90s, and the party holds broadly "Reformist" - Social Democratic, Democratic Socialist- ideology, as can be seen from the party's stated policy translated on the page. Being a left-reformist political party doesn't preclude the party from not having a "socialism" tag. Australian Labor Party or the British Labour Party, both very much a "Reformist" political parties, has the tag, and I don't see any reason why we should remove it from the page. 2604:2000:1382:8A:BC12:D0BA:182D:111D (talk) 00:26, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The party is not cited on its page as socialist and there is no consensus among users to label the party this way. None of the history related to socialism you mentioned is in the article. Neither the word socialism, nor socialist, is referenced even once in the whole article. Social democracy is a separate, distinct ideology and the two should not be conflated. Only if there is some cited evidence given of a reliable relation to socialism on the articles main page should it be included as a tag or category. Helper201 (talk) 10:04, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]


We generally paraphrase and this is not WP:SYNTH. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As per synth - "Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source". Why have an objectification to stating what the source explicitly says? This is especially important when giving statistics, as was done on the MDD article. One should not take an explicit statement of 50-70% and instead change it to "about 60%", what value is there in doing that? Its unnecessary altering of the statement provided. Saying 50-70% is not complex or something which needs over simplification. Helper201 (talk) 03:12, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sheridan Smith

Sorry, my bad for assuming the worst. I do get fed up with people who change information like this (i.e., UK to England) through personal preference, but in this case what you say is a valid reason to do it. This is Paul (talk) 23:50, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Its no problem, but I do appreciate that you took the time to come over here to write this. Thank you and all the best. Helper201 (talk) 23:54, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Scale of justice 2.svg
Hello, Helper201. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Far right

Hi, the word "right" in the "UK far right" title is used as a noun, even when preceded by an adjective. Please do NOT add a hyphen between "far" and "right". See [3] or any English spelling guidebook. Additionally, I suggest you heed WP:BRD. Thanks. — kashmīrī TALK 15:02, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is a noun in of itself. It is consistent across Wikipedia to use the hyphenated version, why should this be any different? Just see the page far-right politics, where it is clearly hyphenated. This is the way it has long stood on this page. If you want to change this you should be the one going on that talk page and forming a consensus, not changing randomly related pages to the main page on a whim. Helper201 (talk) 23:44, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The noun is "far right", without hyphen, as seen in sentences like "The British far right rose out of the fascist movement." When a compound noun is used attributively as a noun adjunct, thus functioning as an adjective, many style guides advise the insertion of a hyphen. So an offer that is only valid for a limited time then becomes a "limited-time offer". But it would be incorrect to write that the offer is only valid "for a limited-time". One should only write "far-right" with a hyphen when it modifies a following noun. See also English compound#Hyphenated compound modifiers.  --Lambiam 14:55, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Date linking

Hi. The guidelines on date linking specifically exclude Year in Topic articles. Deb (talk) 09:42, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is consistent to not to link dates across Wikipedia. Even 'in year' pages are typically not date linked. It goes out of step with standard formatting. Helper201 (talk) 09:44, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at all the other Year in Wales articles, all the Year in Music articles, all the Year in Art articles, etc, and don't change individual articles to create inconsistency. Deb (talk) 09:49, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please observe the standards for Year in Wales and Year in Music article, and don't change individual articles to create inconsistency.Deb (talk) 08:29, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]


I suggest you to stop with the wikihounding pattern. Ok?--Asqueladd (talk) 23:55, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? I stop wikihounding? I have simply added completely legitimate information which there is absolutely nothing wrong with and if you look around is commonplace. You are the one going around removing content without good reason. There is nothing wrong with adding a person's place of birth, it is commonplace and preferable. It is listed in the infobox to be included for a reason. Nothing is technically 'needed' besides claims being cited, all Wikipedia content is optional and generally speaking the more information we as editors provide the better. It does not hurt Wikipedia to add correct information. Despite you accusing me of bias I sense projection on your part. Why do you want to remove a person's country of birth? Do you have a bias there? There is nothing wrong with this. It is commonplace and preferable. You are also being disruptive by editing warring and not taking issues to the necessary talk page. Helper201 (talk) 00:10, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Participate the RfC

Hello, Helper201! If you're interested in helping out for Talk:Motion_picture_content_rating_system#RfC:_Should_we_install_a_color_scheme_with_9_colors_in_the_comparison_table?, please participate the RFC and we can organize something. See sample:User:Zenkaino_lovelive/sandbox--Zenkaino lovelive (talk) 11:22, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Pixels (TV series) moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Dead Pixels (TV series), does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 04:27, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Dead Pixels (TV series) (April 3)

AFC-Logo Decline.svg
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Stevey7788 was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Stevey7788 (talk) 11:19, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Dead Pixels (TV series) has been accepted

Dead Pixels (TV series), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:33, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]


You have not responded to the concerns here Talk:Suicide_awareness Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Justice Party (South Korea)

Information icon
Hello, I'm Garam. I noticed that you recently removed content from Justice Party (South Korea) without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. --Garam (talk) 18:23, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did not remove any content, you did. I was restoring the cited content that you removed. I explained in both my edit summaries why I did so, directing you to the talk page where the matter was adressed over 9 months ago. I also highlighted the Wikipedia:Content removal#Consensus on removal rule, which you seemed to ignore. Helper201 (talk) 06:40, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is already finished discuss. If you want to add "Social democracy", then just try to open new discuss in talk page. Thanks. --Garam (talk) 12:25, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I brought it up on the talk page over 9 months ago. Again, please read the last two paragraphs on the talk page. You have made no attempt to add to that despite your constant reverts. Please also take note of Wikipedia:Content removal#Consensus on removal, which you keep breaking. You are the only person that has a problem with this, its correctly cited and you have no consenus for removal. Helper201 (talk) 03:31, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

that user had been blocked several times due to disruptive editing on his/her home wiki. be careful. 2001:2D8:EA91:D0A1:0:0:72C8:8A00 (talk) 14:56, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to WikiProject Socialism

Democratic party of Korea

Hi I'm Jeff6045. The reason why I write this is to get some help from you. Since you have long career as WP user I think your advice will be very helpful. Some users are trying to inject their own political view to Democratic Party of Korea.I think their behavior is considered to be WP:POINTy . One of users think that the party has socialism as ideology by faction or it is pro-north korea and try to inject their view on the article. However all of their theory is based on opposition party's theory or right-leaning Japanese media. (Today, Japan is having trade war with Korea. I think Japanese media can't make rational view on korea's rulling party.) I think their behavior is completely against WP's policy. Do you know how to handle these users or solve this problem? Jeff6045 06:54, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Jeff6045. Thank you for brining this up here. I have made edits that I think are right according to Wikipedia's rules and have added a comment to the talk page of the page you mentioned. Opposition party claims certainly are not appropriate to use as a factual claim. Most media sources do have political leanings. As long as they are not opinion pieces this usually does not mean they cannot be used as a citation. The more important point is if the source is considered reliable. For example, both The Daily Telegraph and the Daily Mail are politically conservative UK newspapers. The Daily Telegraph, despite its political bias, is generally considered a reliable source for citations on Wikipedia, but the Daily Mail is not. These two pages: WP:RSP and WP:DEPS are helpful for identifying what sources are not reliable. Of course this is from the English language version of Wikipedia, so these pages cover English sources. I don't know but I guess there are similar pages on the Korean and Japanese language Wikipedia's identifying unreliable sources.
Also just a few minor pointers. I have noticed you don't sign some of your posts. Please always sign your talk page posts using the four wavy line symbol (shown above the edit summary box). It is also helpful to use the : symbol before a talk page post when you are the next poster to help organise the section. For example the first commentor places no symbol, then the first reply one : then second reply, :: third reply ::: etc (hope that is clear and not confusing). It is also recommended not to contact specific ediotrs regarding disputes because the editor you contect may be biased in favour of a certain person. When there is an ongoing dispute you usually want to add a request for comment tag to the relevant talk page section, more infomation can be found out about that here - Wikipedia:Requests for comment.
Hope that helps. Please don't heistate to drop me another message if you have any questions. Helper201 (talk) 13:09, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank for your advice. I think your advice really helped me much to edit WP article. Additionally I'll always make sure my post to be signed.
Again I want to thank for your effort.
Jeff6045 02:54, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
@Jeff6045:, no problem, you're welcome. Helper201 (talk) 11:00, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:People's Party of Canada#Anti-immigration

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:People's Party of Canada#Anti-immigration. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 02:21, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Finns party

There has been recent discussion on finns party's ideology on the talk page.
I had added ultranationalism to finns party's ideology based on Bloomberg's article.
However other users are saying that it is undue to see the party as ultranationalist.
Since you have long experience on WP I want you to join discussion. I think your input can be very helpful to make progress on the discussion.
If my revision on finns party is wrong please mention me. I don't want to make same mistake.
Thank you. Jeff6045 00:58, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Fearne Cotton

Hi, If you check Fearne Cotton’s Instagram, she posts a photo every year on her birthday and writes her age in the caption. Disneyluvr818 (talk) 17:41, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Scale of justice 2.svg
Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Independent...

Although you are right on the card that nowhere does it mention LD/APNI in the source of the political alignment of The Independent, A) even though the opinion articles on TI are prehistoric, they still show large signs of centre/centre-left alignment in the more recent articles, and B) the up-to-date articles on the page largely show signs of alignment with the C/CL. I request this be reverted. It says on The Guardian's website that the paper is apolitical (check the bottom of most articles), it's still showed as aligned with Labour and the centre-left on its page on the encyclopedia. Thanks, SamRathbone (talk) 22:35, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is important we keep to the WP:SYNTHESIS rule. The Independent has not endorsed any political party in the last two UK general elections and declares no support for any UK political party. Opinion articles are opinions of individual editors and do not necessarily represent those of the publication itself. As seen in the citation provided the publication generally takes a liberal view but individual editors working for the publication do vary in their political views, although a liberal centrist theme is common. However, when it comes to The Guardian, they have openly and offically declared their support for Labour at the last two general elections, as can be seen here - - and here - . These pages - Endorsements in the 2019 United Kingdom general election and Endorsements in the 2017 United Kingdom general election - you may also find useful. Cheers. Helper201 (talk) 02:20, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just go by the Independent articles of opinion that were ever written, despite the journalists likely being of the Tyrannosaurus rex variety, and say that most of the old fossils whom wrote them are moving pretty LD/APNI. That's what I infer. Is inferring brought up in WP:SYN? SamRathbone (talk) 18:33, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Infering something not explicitly stated by a source comes under both original reaserch and synthesis. Helper201 (talk) 21:47, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Right, ta for the headup. SamRathbone (talk) 19:46, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, happy to help. Helper201 (talk) 19:47, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Liberty Korea party

There has been some discussion on the talk page about LKP's political spectrum. I wish you could join the discussion. Since you have long experience on WP, I think your input can be very helpful to make progress on the discussion. Thank you. Jeff6045 (talk) 07:38, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Jeff6045. I've had a brief look at the discussion going on in the relevant talk page but I'm going to need some more time to go through it properly. I also need some time to view the sources, along with trying to find some others. My knowledge regarding Korean politics is not extensive. In the mean time I'd recommend opening a request for comment (RfC). All the information about this can be found in that link if you don't know how to open one. This should alert other editors to your discussion and you should hopefully then gain some more input from other editors. Just list the RfC under pol for politics, government, and law (seen here WP:RFCCAT). The RfC tags goes at the top of the talk page section where this is being discussed. It may take me a few days to get involved if I find anything I think is worth saying, as I'm rather short of time at the moment. If you have any problems opening an RfC please let me know here and I'll try and open one for you but it is best this is provided by someone already involved in the discussion, so they can give a brief summary of it. All the best and apologies I cannot be involved sooner. Helper201 (talk) 07:59, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding place names in infoboxes (Jo Brand, Simon Warr)

Re your edit summary at Jo Brand: "Standard formatting for infobox person to add the sovereign state the person was born in. In the main text she is classified as English, in the infobox she is classified as British, so both of the corresponding locations are included here. I see no disadvantage to including this. It is factually correct and easy to read."

If you want "factually correct" rather than "concise", you should probably go with London Borough of Wandsworth, Greater London, England, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland :)

Seriously though: Personally, I'd say "London" or "London, England" is clear enough and that pretty much anyone reading an English-language encyclopedia will know where London is.

I also tested your assertion that infoboxes conventionally contain the sovereign state by scanning through the 54 articles in the root of Category:Welsh schoolteachers (excluding Simon Warr). The results suggest quite the opposite. Of the articles which contain an infobox with either the place of birth, the place of death, or both:

Granted, this is not scientific, but if it representative, you're going to have your work cut out changing them all! --kingboyk (talk) 22:39, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

--kingboyk (talk) 22:39, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Editor at Grace Blakeley

If I didn't think I was involved I'd block or AE ban, most of their edits are problematic, quite a few BLP violations. Thanks for your revert. Doug Weller talk 15:14, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Citing encyclopedias

Hi, Since you're a more experienced editor than I am, I'd like to ask you a question. Is it okay to cite something like Encyclopædia Britannica as a source? Thanks in advance. Ezhao02 (talk) 15:06, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ezhao02, I think this should be helpful - Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Encyclopædia Britannica is listed on the sources table on that page, where for this source it states -
"The Encyclopædia Britannica (including its online edition, Encyclopædia Britannica Online) is a tertiary source with a strong reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Most editors prefer reliable secondary sources over the Encyclopædia Britannica when available. In January 2009, the Encyclopædia Britannica Online began accepting content submissions from the general public.[12] Although these submissions undergo the encyclopedia's editorial process, some editors believe that content from non-staff contributors is less reliable than the encyclopedia's staff-authored content. Content authorship is disclosed in the article history."
These pages should hopefully be helpful as well - WP:WPNOTRS and Template:Cite encyclopedia. All the best, Helper201 (talk) 14:06, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help! I'll take a look. Ezhao02 (talk) 15:50, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No body

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.

On the subject of Sanders "drop out" vs "suspended" wording

I am copy-pasting what I wrote in Talk:2020_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries/Archive_9#Sanders_Dropped:

In my experience of following American elections, "suspending a campaign" has always been synonymous to "dropping out," "ends run," or "withdraws." I believe that the difference between "suspending" and "dropping out" is just formal vs casual wording. You can google any candidate's name followed by "drops out" or "suspends campaign" and come up with articles written within the same few hours from different reliable sources, ie: on March 5, the NYT said Warren "drops out" in the title and says "suspended her campaign" in the body of the text, while ABC said "suspended" and "suspends," and CNN says "drops out." I believe that there is not any difference at all.

Really the only nuance at all is that Bernie continues to collect delegates in order to affect policy at the convention. However, he has entirely conceded to and endorsed Biden in the actual presidential race. This concession is well documented and admitted by Bernie himself for a month and a half by this point. Cookieo131 (talk) 16:54, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cookieo131, I understand what you're saying but in this case there is a difference, which you have acknowledged. Sanders is still on the ballot and has not dropped out. Therefore, to say he has dropped out is inaccurate. Whereas the other candidates (with the exception of Biden) have all officially dropped out and will not be listed as candidates to vote for on upcoming Democrat primary ballot papers. So, out of saying ‘he has suspended his campaign’ vs ‘he has dropped out’, it is better we go with which one is more technically/factually accurate. What advantage is there is saying the one with less truth that leads to more confusion? The other candidates are not candidates in further primaries, whereas he is. There is this clear difference between his case and other candidates no longer in the race. As you have acknowledged there is a reason why he is doing this to attempt to collect delegates, so it has a reason, a purpose. To say or imply that he has dropped out in the same way as other candidates is clearly at the very least misleading. Helper201 (talk) 20:47, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Hey, i have seen that you reverted my edit on the Alternative for Germany article pointing to a two and a half year old RfC without even the courtesy of a talk page comment regarding it. Why is the over two year old RfC so set in stone? At least pop a note on the talk in the ongoing discussion regarding it and communicate with more than edit summaries. Seems like incredibly bad form. 2003:D6:2714:3743:51A:FEF2:326F:5C23 (talk) 21:11, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Don't ever introduce false information in Wikipedia. This fake sourcing has been already debuked in the talk page. Cheers.--Asqueladd (talk) 19:58, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not misrepresent me. As my edit summary described my alteration was to fix the way the infobox was formatted, it had nothing to do with the sources. I just reverted back to an older version of the page which restored some citations. I did not know there was discrepancy with any of the sources validity. Helper201 (talk) 20:04, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is an open thread (since February 2020!!) about how WP:UNDUE applies to those labels also "illuminating" about the "wrong" (so to speak...) use Alexanderjames1990 recently gave to that source. The reliability of the latter has not been disputed. Sadly, not unlike the case of AfD, editors edit without engaging into the talk page talk.--Asqueladd (talk) 20:14, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I do not understand what you mean, either here or on the article's talk page. Your use of English is not clear. To try to make myself clear - I was not trying to remove or add anything. Either right-wing or far-right. I was just attempting to change the infobox to the standard layout/format, that's all. It was my mistake to add sources back that may or may not be suitable. Helper201 (talk) 20:20, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, my English is certainly improvable. I will try to pull my best Tarzan impersonation:

Are you still not grasping any of the points above?--Asqueladd (talk) 20:25, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sensing some hostility here. Please remember WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL.
  • I have read the talk page, as I said I do not understand what you mean here or there.
  • I have no opinion on the sources. I cannot stress that enough. I have not looked into them. My edit had nothing to do with what source does or does not support what. I was simply correcting the way the political position section is correctly formatted / set out. We say "X" position or "X to Y" position e.g. "Right-wing", or "Right-wing to far-right". We don't list political positions with one under the other.
I would suggest opening an WP:RFC on the matter on the talk page for more input from other editors. Helper201 (talk) 20:38, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) @Asqueladd: Your aggressive tone constitutes a personal attack. I double-checked and see that Helper201 did not change anything related to sourcing in the article. I think you should now apologise for an unfounded attack. — kashmīrī TALK 20:37, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kashmiri: Helper has recovered the Turnbull-Dugarte, Rama & Santana (2020) source wrongly backing up a right-wing label in the infobox here. I invite you to check that source:

and find out where the alleged statement backing up a "right wing label" (as in opposed to a "far-right" one) is featured. There is an ongoing discussion about the labels in the talk page (since months ago). Once you've checked the source and confirm that you can't use it for that purpose as the source describes Vox as a far-right party of the radical right wing variety, I invite you too to engage in the talk page talk, hopefully dealing about the content of the article and not about what I have told Helper or whatnot.--Asqueladd (talk) 21:06, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Both regional parties in the UK, does clearly sharing a similar issue, regardless you being seemly denial, writing like a literal-minded?

Your undos from these two parties' Scottish Unionist and AWAP's See also sections that I add for (maybe) two times, are still regardless unintentionally shared a similar political ideology on wishing of abolishing their respective regional Parliaments (Scottish and Welsh), to their pre-regional parliaments times (pre-1997 in Scotland and pre-1999 in Wales). Especially its doesn't help in the latter page, has says, through unverified for the moment, of their new party leader has intentions of rebranding their party, which presumably includes, being no longer a single-issue party to be something like the former from Scotland? And this month, that both the current leader I was talking about, happened to be ideologically affiliated with right-wing politics (him being a Ex-Conservative and UKIP member), and days ago, that the party also got their first ever defected MS, Gareth Bennett happens to be a right-wing and a former leader of the UKIP's de facto Welsh branch. Which is strengthen my thinking, more. Chad The Goatman (talk) 19:28, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chad The Goatman. Sorry but I'm having a bit of a hard time understanding your use of English. Yes, the parties do share a similar ideology regarding abolishing their regional Parliaments. However, there are many differences. In Scotland independence is a big political issue. Unionism in Scotland is mostly about remaining part of the UK. There are also religious issues in Scotland regarding Catholicism and Protestantism and the union. In Wales there is much less of an independence movement. We also don't usually link political parties in the see also section of other political party pages just because they happen to share a policy or ideology. If we were to do so, see also sections would get far too large too quickly. Your sentence "Welsh equivalent who advocate a similar issue, when to favour abolishing the region's devolved legislative system", is also grammatically incorrect. I think you mean "Welsh equivalent who advocate a similar issue - favouring abolishing the region's devolved legislative system" or something similar. The Scottish Unionist Party also have other clear policy/ideology issues outside devolving the Scottish Parliament, whereas ATWA are, so far, a single-issue party. Yes, with having people in the party formerly involved with the Conservatives and UKIP, they may end up pushing views of the right. However, we should not assume they are on the right until they start stating other views and they are reported as being of the right by third-party sources. For editors to assume this would be WP:OR and/or WP:SYNTHESIS. Helper201 (talk) 22:41, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, about the Welsh Independence being a irrelevant in 2020, their a recent five-opinion choice poll[1] that study on the political status of Wales, that Welsh Independence is becoming less irrelevant–for full-on Independence (16%) and just only simply directly for it (25%)–for now, but unfortunately in the same poll, the anti-Welsh Devolution movement is somehow getting momentum (22%), which is this AWAP, as for now, as their top major issue, that could unfortunate taken the benefit.
For the supposed religious issue in Scottish nationalism, I don't believe that mostly true now, due when the SNP (Scottish National Party) is a centre-left political party and so the few others left-wing Scottish nationalist parties' like the Scottish Greens, where even non-Catholics could be members of those parties' can calling themselves as a Scottish nationalists, regarding their cultural heritages.
On my wording, yea I need to shorten down the mild comparisons (based on your choice) with these two anti-devolution regional political parties. Along I knew, that either during or after the COVID–19 Pandemic is over, then the AWAP could start rebrand their party's identity (which are officially making Welsh unionism an serious issue, other than unofficially, with besides abolishing the Senedd) for the first ever Senedd (sub-regional) election, as likely means of getting the British nationalist and hard British unionist voters. Chad The Goatman (talk) 23:37, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Welsh independence has grown slightly over the last few years, but its currently nothing like the division in Scotland over independence. A lot of Scottish politics has been based around the issue of independence since the 2014 independence referendum and the rise of the SNP. Whereas in Wales independence is not a major issue and is very rarely brought up outside of being advocated by Plaid Cymru.
I'm not saying that religion is a major issue in Scottish nationalism per say. Just that sectarianism in Scotland is an issue and has a role in the independence vs unionism debate. Protestant organisations like the Grand Orange Lodge of Scotland tend to be Unionist. Scotland has some deep issues with sectarianism, partly spilling over from similar sectarian issues in Ireland and the interlinked relations of people from the two countries (see Ulster Scots people). It’s a complex issue that I wouldn't expect a non-British person to understand. Wales however does not have this issue.
Any chance you could summarise your thoughts about the main issue you were reverting on? I think this is getting a bit off topic. Can you see my reasoning now? Helper201 (talk) 23:59, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but however, they have currently two Welsh nationalist parties (the latter,–which is basically named the Welsh National Party prior being forcefully removed by the WEC, because of his former party last month,–was founded this year by ex-Plaid Cymru/Independent MS, over their bitter conflict between the party vs their ex-MS member) in both the Welsh and British parliaments (for the former only) right now. So, I don't know about that yet for this year alone.
I see that sectarianism in Scotland, was an serious issue from the last century, due of primarily economical reason being the trigger event instead of being hugely politically motivated, but in the statistic on the 2011 census revealed that Protestantism (specifically the Church of Scotland), has slight declined in that time, so it hinted that the either the Scottish Nationalist or British/Scottish Unionists are moving way from Protestantism to Secularism.
I mean you wanted on cutting down that people can read it better, then you go right head. If you wanted too. Chad The Goatman (talk) 21:03, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


  1. ^ Awan-Scully, Roger (5 June 2020). "Attitudes to Devolution and Welsh Independence". Blog - Election of Wales. Retrieved 28 June 2020. ((cite web)): Check |first= value (help)CS1 maint: url-status (link)

Page protection

Hi Helper201. Please be careful when editing noticeboards - you inadvertently amended an outstanding request for page protection. I have since restored it. Thanks, Darren-M talk 17:16, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Darren-M. I'm sorry, my mistake. I'll try and be more careful in future. Thanks for letting me know. Helper201 (talk) 17:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Helper201, No worries, thank you! Darren-M talk 17:19, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Forrest

Most Australian articles utilise the 'guidance' of

((Use dmy dates|date=November 2019)) ((Use Australian English|date=December 2011)) - and where possible these are placed at the top of the page...

There should be no need to add anything extra about that as it is assumed editors can see that when editing... JarrahTree 10:18, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Bacondrum (talk) 02:10, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of television shows considered the best moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, List of television shows considered the best, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published, and was previously deleted. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of television series considered the best. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:35, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Vegan Party and Opinion polling for the next Danish general election

Hey, thanks for the message. Ecocentrism is what the party refers to themselves as. They're still very new in politics, so they haven't really been able to show us whether or not that holds up. Same with green politics. To be honest, they seem to be pretty single-issue. They are largely portrayed and considered to be a somewhat extremist party, so I definitely wouldn't put them closer to the center. That said, I don't actually have anything to do with the opinion poll page, so I'm not sure how the parties are sorted on the table. From what I can tell, the page is mainly being maintained by User:Zwitterione and User:Høst, so I would throw the suggestion their way if I were you. Kaffe42 (talk) 19:13, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Kaffe42. No problem, thanks for getting back to me. After reading the page ecocentrim I had initially misunderstood the term and took it to initially mean ecological politics in the centre of the political spectrum, but that doesn't seem to be what it is. I have mentioned the issue on the talk page of the opinion polling page. I think you might run into the issue of notability for whether the page justifies to be kept as the party seems very insignificant at present having no elected representatives, polling at less than 1% and not having been involved in any elections as far as I can see. It doesn't seem significant enough to warrant a Wikipedia page to me and I'm not sure it meets notability guidelines. Helper201 (talk) 19:19, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In general parties that have run in parliamentary elections get a Wikipedia page, and since they have just become eligible for that I made them a page. That's also why they are being included in polls now. Basically they're considered to be an 'established party' in Danish politics now. But maybe you're right. Either way a cleanup in the Danish political parties would be great sometime. Kaffe42 (talk) 19:38, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Universal Basic Income

Where was this change discussed? There are now a lot of broken categories. The documentation has also been lost. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:41, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I left a message on the Wikiproject's talk page here. Granted it received no response. I waited a few days but since the main page of the project shows it is very inactive I wasn't expecting any replies and have still yet to receive any. The pain page has been re-named to universal basic income after talk page consensus, as has the corresponding category. I thought this would not likely receive any objections and was consistent with the other changes that were made. I understand if you think I should have waited. Apologies if I messed up the process, my intent is all in good faith. Helper201 (talk) 12:40, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

UBI project

Thanks for your message. I don’t think I belong in the project, though I’ve watchlisted its page in case there’s anything I can contribute. If there was a project headed by Redistribution of income and wealth it might be a more natural home for me. Colin.champion (talk) 09:38, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Thank you for getting back to me. OK, anything you can contribute whenever you have time would be much appreciated. The nearest WikiProject's to redistribution of income and wealth that I know of that might interest you would be WikiProject Economics and WikiProject Socialism. Helper201 (talk) 19:58, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October 2020

Information icon
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Separation of church and state. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. I know the old addage is: "Don't template the regulars", but you know better than this. That edit was clearly vandalism, and nothing else. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 22:39, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Symmachus Auxiliarus: this was in no way vandalism. Please explain how you think this is vandalism. Helper201 (talk) 22:40, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake. This was obviously a contribution made in good faith. However, I'm starting to become a bit concerned that some of these articles on the topic (including the one you linked to) are partial hoaxes, that have essentially flown under the radar for some time. As in that they refer to real (if nebulous) concepts, but that the name of the article isn't the WP:COMMONNAME. It's widely known that "antidisestablishmentarianism" is essentially a made-up word, that has no real meaning. In fact, some of the references in the article make this clear (such as the Merriam Webster article, which states why the word doesn't appear in their dictionary). It's a modern neologism that was created to contrast with "disestablishmentarianism", which itself is a real word, but one that's rarely used in the English language, and is rarely applied to the concept it's associated with.
I can't check many of the references used on that page (most of which seem to be a single source), so I can't verify that it's a valid reference which is habitually using this term. The usual term used that I've seen in scholarly writings is simply "disestablishment" [of the church]. In the literature I have seen, I honestly haven't seen "antidisestablishmentarianism" used anywhere, except the one verifiable source of the Michigan Law Review (which I have yet to access).
I'm not sure whether I'm correct here. I don't live in the United Kingdom, and I'm only casually acquainted with the concept of disestablishment. But it's possible that Wikipedia is being used to support/coin neologisms. Perhaps I'm making a mountain out of a SYNTH molehill, though. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 23:12, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the crux here is: Can we verify that contemporaneous sources use "disestablishmentarianism" and/or "antidisestablishmentarianism" to describe political philosophies in the 19th century, or that it's a term widely used in reliable sources (that is, those with a scholarly basis, and not churnalism)? Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 23:15, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear I'm not a regular or large contributor to the page disestablishmentarianism. I've only made one small edit to it recently to add related links. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with its name or how valid or not the page is. These potential issues are probably something that would be a good idea to bring up on its talk page. The reason I linked it was purely because it is related to the separation of church and state in the United Kingdom. That's it. Helper201 (talk) 23:20, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) No worries. I figured that out within a few minutes after leaving that warning on your talk page, a few minute late. It's obviously a good faith linkage. Again, my apologies. And I likely will bring this up on both of the talk pages, since the more I look into this, the more it appears my suspicion is correct. I've been able to verify that the limited usage of the term antidisestablishmentarianism likely stems solely from the 1998 Jed Rubenfeld article, and all subsequent uses in any steam of scholarship seem to be others citing that article. It doesn't really appear to be an actual concept that predates that first usage. Almost certainly not something that actually comes down to us from the 19th century. I'm not even sure it can be said to be an actual concept even now, as almost everything I've seen is typically just referencing his work, or is churnalism post-dating the Wikipedia article. Wasn't expecting to fall down this rabbit hole. Ha. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 23:29, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Thanks for discussing the matter. I hope you can get some dialogue on the talk page with those that regularly edit it and/or those that make large edits to the page and get across the issues you see with it. Helper201 (talk) 23:37, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Scale of justice 2.svg
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]


I notice that you are helping with musicians' bios, and thank you for that. I am taking some on my to-do-list that need refs. Two wishes: 1) please try to keep tags as concise as possible, not "multiple" for needs refs and inline, - just the stronger. (Admitting: I hate these tags, and will try to get rid of them, as they discredit the information for our readers. How about a notice on the talk where writers will watch?) 2) West Germany and East Germany (and Nazi Germany and Weimar Republic ...) are all sloppy common names for complex political entities. I try to avoid them by piping, the same way I will pipe Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, a name that the person in question never used. It's a matter of respect. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:11, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gerda Arendt, no problem. For instances where I put both I do so because a couple of sources may be listed that are not used as footnotes but either a. not likely enough to cover the amount of uncited information given or b. it could still generally do with more sources as well as footnotes, though I do generally try to keep to one. Tags on the main page are usually the best way to get the most people's attention, especially from readers that aren't signed up Wikipedia editors. At lot of big edits can come from IP's making one off edits that don't edit on a regular basis.
In terms of nation states, this is an issue I have come across before and one I feel quite strongly about. We should use the country that existed at the time of the person's birth and death in the infobox, per Template:Infobox person. Under the Parameters section of that page it explicitly states to "Use the name of the birthplace at the time of birth". For West and East Germany, we should use West Germany/Federal Republic of Germany/Bonn Republic or East Germany/German Democratic Republic, respectively. Most non-Wikipedia editors rarely click on or view blue internal Wikipedia internal links. So just stating Germany can be misrepresentative and can confuse people, as the two countries that today make up Germany were not the same before 1990 as they are today. Therefore it is much more beneficial and less confusing to readers if we clearly and explicitly state the country that existed at the time of their birth and death. Helper201 (talk) 22:49, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You write "exist", and for me "West Germany" didn't exist (nor the others). (I am German, and my passport didn't say "West Germany" or an equivalent.) For someone making music, West or East or Nazi don't even seem relevant. For politicians, that may be different. What do you think of the Mozart name? - The Salzburg Festival always writes W. A. Mozart, not the common name that didn't "exist", - he wrote Wolfgang Amadé or Wolfgangus Amadeus but never the composition you will hear most on radio, and read as our article title. Nutshell: when an article title is wrong or problematic, it may be the lesser misrepresentation to not show it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:15, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Internationally West and East Germany were regarded as separate, not one country. Wikipedia is written from a global perspective. They both had their own governments and different laws etc. I'm not saying your views are wrong, it’s just internationally the world didn't generally regard there to be one Germany from 1949 – September 1990. I think this should be applied universally and it doesn't matter what the profession of the person is or was. What existed under West and East Germany were different entities to each other and to that which exists today, in some ways this is undeniable. There were two different governments and now one, there are now unified laws, changed borders etc. I don't have any opinion on the Mozart matter. I think conventions on people's name's and countries are their own individual matters and probably have different Wikipedia guidelines that probably shouldn't be conflated. Helper201 (talk) 23:28, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) The names West Germany and East Germany were inventions of the English-speaking world. The countries themselves were named Bundesrepublik Deutschland (BRD) and Deutsche Demokratische Republik (DDR) respectively by their governments - these translate to Federal Republic of Germany and German Democratic Republic respectively. At reunification, the former DDR was dissolved and the BRD was expanded - the present country known in English as Germany is also formally Bundesrepublik Deutschland, since it is the same country simply with five additional Länder on top of the original ten plus the reunified Berlin. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:25, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Redrose64, respectively, what is your point here? You explicitly said "countries themselves", i.e. more than one. Helper201 (talk) 02:16, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nationality/citizenship problems in regard to women

Hope you don't mind, Helper, a new subsection here but I thought both you and Gerda Arendt might be interested in this initiative SusunW has come up with for development in 2021. You might be interested in contributing to our brainstorming on User talk:SusunW/Women's nationality. I've always thought it was a particularly important topic to address on Wikipedia as there seems to be very little appreciation of the issue, especially in regard to the need to establish "Country of citizenship" on Wikidata or categories related to nationality in women's biographies. It seems to me the whole question of Germans and Germany deserves special attention in this connection. And while I'm here, thanks Gerda for all wonderful contributions to Christmas on DYK.--Ipigott (talk) 15:34, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ipigott, I don't mind at all. Thanks for letting me know. I'll have a look into it. Helper201 (talk) 13:28, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]


What I tried to say in an edit summary: Bremen was in Germany in 1954. If you think it has to be said that it was in the west of Germany - which I don't think is at all relevant for a music teacher - please don't use West Germany which is a very sloppy name, but pipe it. To say "West Germany now Germany" is plain wrong, sounding as if it wasn't in Germany before now. When you speak about Bremen in medieval times you wouldn't add "now Germany", or would you? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:07, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda Arendt, this is common consensus for how this is done. West Germany is the common English name for the Federal Republic of Germany which existed from 1949 to 1990 as its own distinct country. While East Germany is the common English name for the German Democratic Republic, which also existed for the same years and was also its separate, distinct country. It is standard formatting to "Use the name of the birthplace at the time of birth" in the infobox, as seen on Template:Infobox person. These countries are separate from the west and east of Germany as it stands today as one united country, in which case you would not include west and east because it’s one united country. This distinction is used when the person in question was born or died between 1949 to 1990 because these were two separate countries both with Germany in their name during those times, of which there is no universal consensus which one was the one true "Germany". Just saying Germany could confuse people as there was and is no consensus that only one was Germany and the other wasn't, or that they were one country from 1949 to 1990, because they weren't. Helper201 (talk) 21:16, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. (I am German, and I have been a member of project Germany for more than a decade.) There is no consensus. Some write Germany (no link, correct for the current country), others write West Germany and East Germany with links unpiped, some write the same piped. Nobody - up to you now - wrote "now Germany" as if it wasn't Germany before. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:33, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gerda Arendt well you can find this consistently on many pages of which it is rarely rejected. If you just write Germany for people that were born between 1949 and 1990 it’s not clear whether you are speaking of West or East Germany. Saying "now Germany" isn't supposed to be indicating there wasn't a Germany before, simply that Germany was split previously and one of the countries was referred to in the English-speaking world as West Germany, the other as East Germany. Now as the united country it is simply referred to as Germany in the English-speaking world. You could link Germany in "now Germany" to clarify this in brackets under West or East Germany but I don't see any other way that you can stop the issues I've raised while also attending to what you are raising as an issue unless you have any suggestions. I see no perfect solution but this seems much better than just saying "Germany" for either or both West and/or East Germany, which is simply confusing in the English-speaking world. Saying now Germany clarifies that neither West nor East Germany exist anymore but it is one united country just called Germany. Perhaps as another solution you could place under West or East Germany (Germany united in 1990) instead of now Germany. Helper201 (talk) 22:45, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. I haven't seen "now Germany", and I don't want to see it. Redrose64 explained in 2020 - still on this talk - why not. Past midnight here, so no more today, sorry. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:41, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, with all due respect we come to a consensus, it’s not just about what you want. I have come up with alternative proposals, so please consider them for an alternate way forward. I have explained the issues I see as best I can and I think we are at an impasse unless you want to consider my alternative proposals or want to come up with your own that we can agree on that get around these issues. Criticism of this way of doing things does not appear to be common among other editors. Take it to a wider pool of editors if you want and quote this discussion we’ve had. Helper201 (talk) 00:00, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry to see that you take as criticism what I meant just as a description of what I observe. Nikkimaria uses a plain Germany without link, even when the period from 1945/1949 to 1990 is meant, which makes a lot of sense to me: People who really don't know where a town such as Bremen (or Leipzig) was in geography and politics at a certain time (here a person's birthdate), can easily find it in that town's article. Germany is a current country which should not be linked per WP:OVERLINK, and West Germany was politically the same country, just smaller. - We talk about a person's biography, and all these extras (a link to a common name which was never official or undisputed, + "now" something else that is easily deduced) seems undue weight, to me at least. Would you wish to include in Bach's bio that Leipzig where he died is "now Germany"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:57, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but I'm not sure I understand your point or have much else to say that I haven't already. I know linking Germany is typically overlinking, I was just suggesting it as a compromise to what you see as an issue to try and help resolve it. I'm also not sure of the article you are speaking of. Helper201 (talk) 22:14, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 16:27, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:List of television shows considered the best

Hello, Helper201. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "List of television shows considered the best".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the ((db-afc)), ((db-draft)), or ((db-g13)) code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:55, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit to "Alba Party"

Hello, I just wanted to let you know "Nationalist" vs "Independence-supporting" has been discussed in the talk page of the article. The description "Nationalist" is also extensively used in reliable sources, including those used in the article, both from political commentators and journalists, and it has been used to describe party members in the past; "alba"+"nationalist" here's the search of it. I've reverted your edit with that in mind, and if you have another view feel free to bring it up in the talk page. Thank you. Uses x (talkcontribs) 05:36, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Uses x, thanks for explaining your reasoning for this. If that is the case and it is reliably sourced that the party is Scottish nationalist then a citation should be provided next to this claim in the main text and it should be added to the infobox. Helper201 (talk) 05:40, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Uses x, the results from that search aren't so clear or obvious to this claim. The only one I could see that specifically calls the party nationalist (the others refer the to the "nationalist vote" or "nationalist seats") is this, though it doesn't specifically call the party Scottish nationalist. Similar issues related to specific nationalist variants have been brought up on other political party pages when a specific variant of nationalism is not defined by the source by trying to attribute the origin country to in it can conflict with WP:SYNTHESIS somewhat if the source doesn't specifically define it. Helper201 (talk) 05:47, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a citation for it now. "Of course the bigger picture may be important – the “split” in the nationalist movement might put people off both the SNP and independence", according to John Curtice. I have the view that both "Nationalist" and "Independence-supporting" are correct, but some people disagree with the first because the word is sometimes used by racists. Maybe it's because I'm Irish and it's widely accepted in Northern Ireland there's "Nationalist" and "Unionist" parties, and that's not contentious at all. Anyway, it might be worth bringing up in the talk page to see if "independence-supporting" is the best for everyone. Uses x (talkcontribs) 05:51, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:2021 disestablishments in Scotland

A tag has been placed on Category:2021 disestablishments in Scotland indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 14:17, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Radical Independence Campaign

Hi Helper201, I noticed you reverted the changes I made to the RIC wikipedia page, and you have cited a Tweet from the beginning of the year as evidence that RIC was disbanded. The disbanding was disputed, as was cited in the National and Bella Caledonia articles which I referenced. Furthermore, even those who proposed disbanding RIC, recognised that this was only a disbanding of RIC at the national level, and that local groups could continue.

Regardless of what happened in the past, I can assure you that RIC is very much active at both local and national, and the Wikipedia page should reflect that. References for RIC being active; the same National article cited above, as well as this article from Bella Caledonia. Also see the new RIC website which contains information of a national RIC conference currently being organised.

I accept that some of my edits were a little heavy handed, and am happy to reinstate much of the information I removed. However, to say that RIC no longer exists is inaccurate, and should therefore not be mentioned. Thanks. Gonigal (talk) 10:51, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gonigal, thank you for discussing this issue. Can you please copy over what is posted here to the article's talk page so more editors can more easily find and engage in this discussion if they so wish? I have briefly scanned through the sources and restored the new wording. I'm unsure of the reliability of Bellacaledonia as its a site I've never come across before but I have restored The National citation to the page. I have left out some other edits you made because there were a lot of formatting issues with them. I'll read over the Bellacaledonia articles when I have more time and may incorporate them but I'd like to know more about the reliability of the source and see if it meets reliable source guidelines. Other editors’ views would also be good to hear. Helper201 (talk) 17:12, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit on the List of political parties in New Zealand article

In regards to your edit on the List of Political Parties in New Zeland article, there actually is this source (which is cited in the article, though the link might not be displaying correctly), which says it is right-libertarian. I will therefore be reverting your edit. Thanks for the thought though. Have a nice day :) Ayvind-Bjarnason (talk) 01:05, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ayvind-Bjarnason, the source says "The ACT Party (Rōpū ACT) is a right-wing libertarian party that advocates free market policies and reducing the role of government". Right-wing libertarian party does not equal right-libertarian, that is WP:SYNTHESIS. It says the party is right-wing and libertarian, not that is espouses libertarianism of a right ward bent. Helper201 (talk) 11:51, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is actaully mildly funny since it comes down to the smallest semantics; if there were a comma between "right-wing" and "libertarian", you'd be right. However, there is not, and this source suggests that "right-wing libertarian" is a valid term. Perhaps, though, it may be better to call it "right-wing libertarian" rather than "right-libertarian", to avoid a false equation between the two? The wikipedia page suggests they are the same, though I don't see any parts of the sources that say s (I must admit I've only skimmed through). Thanks. Ayvind-Bjarnason (talk) 13:30, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not sure whether or not it breaks WP:SYNTHESIS. I think copying this discussion over to the talk page of the List of political parties in New Zealand article and/or the talk page of ACT New Zealand and opening a request for comment for input from other editors would be the best option. Helper201 (talk) 23:50, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Let us do that. Ayvind-Bjarnason (talk) Ayvind-Bjarnason (talk) 02:07, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:2021 disestablishments in Scotland

A tag has been placed on Category:2021 disestablishments in Scotland indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 15:45, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Turnbull

The infobox did not contain the term "UK" until you added it. Per WP:BRD, it is therefore your responsibility to explain why you did that, taking into account previous discussions to which I have directed you, such as this. Please discuss this on the talk page, rather than in edit summaries, and do not edit war. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:13, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did explain why, because it corresponds with their given nationality of British. Helper201 (talk) 17:15, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat - please discuss this on the article talk page. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:16, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 5

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Video game, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stress.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Categorization of templates

Hello, Helper201. Thank you for your contributions in the categorization of templates. Please keep in mind, that all categorization wikitext for templates must be placed in <noinclude>...</noinclude> tags. Example of edits, which needed to be fixed: Special:Diff/1036453154, Special:Diff/1036453110. If <noinclude>...</noinclude> is not present already, it must be added around the categorization wikitext. For details, see WP:CAT#T. —⁠andrybak (talk) 10:31, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Socialism in the UK


Thank you for your edits on this template, however please consider discussing this further on the talk page before editing further. I have asked others from the socialism wikiproject to look at the template further for more outside perspective of what should/ should not be included.

Having taken the socialism in the US template as an example for what the UK one should function as, there is a broad church approach to socialism including communist and green party groups within it. Please do see the template to orientate further before editing the UK one.

Template:American socialism Jamzze (talk) 15:17, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Helper201,
Thank you for your contribution with the template. I think we both have very different directions for the template, so I have asked for dispute resolution to take place to try and find some middle ground so we can both continue editing. Please do add your side of the story onto Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard for the third party :D. Happy future editing! Jamzze (talk) 19:26, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Audio version of Apollo 11 created

Hi, I have uploaded an audio version of the Apollo 11 article, and just wanted to let you know, since you requested such a recording. I am just waiting for someone to approve my suggested edit to add it to the article. ExcarnateSojourner (talk) 04:09, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, ExcarnateSojourner, brilliant! Thank you for doing this. Best of luck in getting it approved. Helper201 (talk) 19:15, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zoe Ness , could a more recent picture be added to her profile picture please

Could a more recent picture be added to her profile picture a Rangers or Scotland one . Story Morning Glory (talk) 09:38, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Story Morning Glory, the current photo was taken from a file uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, seen here - I did not take this photo myself and as far as I can see there isn't a more recent one available of her on Wikimedia Commons, but if I see a more recent one of good quality, I will look to update it. Helper201 (talk) 19:15, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Scale of justice 2.svg
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:45, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Please see my comments on the LREM talk page, and apologies if my language was slightly harsh previously. TheFrench page for LREM reached a consensus that the positioning of the party in the infobox should be "centre-left to centre-right". Here is a link to our fellow editors' discussion, which reached a consensus on this designation in late 2019. Since this is the consensus prior to us even having this debate, I've changed the lede and the infobox designation accordingly while all interested editors continue to discuss, and also posted this to the LREM talk page. EndlessCoffee54 (talk) 21:22, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"better source than a YouTube video"

Did you watch the video? It is Sally Phillips in her own words describing her own life. Daundelin 18:30, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Daundelin apologies, I didn't. I just saw the source was from YouTube and added that per WP:YOUTUBE, WP:BLP and WP:LIBEL. I think even if properly sourced it’s debatable whether it should be included due to the guideline of presumption in favour of privacy when it comes to biographies of living persons. It’s also debatable whether it is really noteworthy enough for inclusion. It is also stated that "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous or harmful", so I was trying to be on the safe side of that too. Helper201 (talk) 18:44, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It would likely be a good idea moving forward to check references before removing them. BLP? It is the unedited words of the subject herself, which also removes libel concerns. It was something she said herself in a professionally-produced interview with a colleague, so no, presumption or privacy or suggestions that this is harmful also don't apply. And, since again this is her talking about her own life, it isn't 'contentious' either, nor is it--for the reasons I have repeatedly noted--un- or poorly-sourced. It's direct from the horse's mouth.
TLDR: check references before deleting them. Daundelin 18:49, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Daundelin I do check sources before removing them. I did not remove this source, that was a different editor, I simply tagged the claim as needing a better source. If you want to remove the tag then fine. I'm not arguing against you, I'm simply explaining why I did what I did. I usually do view sources; I just simply tagged the claim on this occasion when I saw it was a YouTube source but should've viewed it first. Helper201 (talk) 18:55, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, let me rephrase then: check sources before decreeing that they are unreliable. We're clear? Good. Daundelin 19:08, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Norway and euroscepticism

To explain further why Norway's Red Party is not "hard eurosceptic": Norway is completely exterior to the European Union. "Hard eurosceptic" refers to politics in a country within the EU that favor that country's withdrawal from it or the dissolution of it. A Norwegian party's opposition to joining the EU in Norway is no more "hard eurosceptic" than would be opposition to Russia joining the EU from United Russia. RiverCityRelay (talk) 05:25, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

Original Barnstar Hires.png
The Original Barnstar
You really do justice to your username. Thanks for your contribution to Fadew and all the other little but efficient edits you make to other articles. Tame (talk) 17:02, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tamingimpala awww, thank you! In my years and many thousands of edits I've never received a barnstar or any awards, so I really appreciate you took the time to give this to me here. I'll try and continue to help out as best I can. You've been doing great work on the Fadew page, so thanks to you too! Thanks again for your appreciation and all the best. Helper201 (talk) 17:08, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can I know why you don't keep a userpage? At first I thought you're a newbie. Tame (talk) 17:11, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Tamingimpala I guess I've never seen much of a reason to create one for myself personally. I prefer to generally just go about my editing without drawing much attention to myself and never thought anyone would really care to look at my user page if I created one or that I'd have much I'd want to say on it. Helper201 (talk) 17:15, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Helper201, I'm someone who visits userpages a lot. By visiting mine, you'd notice I do quite like to decorate it. You know, to me, the best feeling about wiki editing is when ur edit gets noticed and you feel appreciated. Everyone, even with 1 good faith edit, should feel proud. We're doing something bigger than our personal selves, I mean i'm sure u know, aside from the addiction (i'm pretty much wikiholic), the feeling that you get knowing u're efforts are making people's life easier, its just can't be expressed into words. Thanks Jimmy for starting the project, otw the internet wouldn't have been the same. Have a great rest of your evening/morning/afternoon. Tame (talk) 17:21, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Tame I like your userpage, especially the pictures you have displayed. I like Slowdive and have a physical copy of their Souvlaki album that I bought after hearing their music while walking around a big old antique shop about 5 years ago. I agree, it’s a nice feeling to be appreciated and every good faith edit helps build a great platform and should be appreciated. I love the fact its an open platform where anyone can come and edit and do as much or as little as they want. Oh yes, I think I'd fall into the same boat regarding being a wikiholic. That feeling when you look at the time and it’s flown by editing, or you'll just do one more edit, or you're tired but see that one little thing you think you could fix so drag yourself online to fix it etc. Music can be nice to have on in the background for a relaxing session but also makes the time go by even faster. Thank you for your wishes and the same to you. Helper201 (talk) 17:34, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Helper201, ur fav slowdive tracks? Tame (talk) 22:10, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Tame, its been a few years since I last listened to them to be honest. I've just stuck on Souvlaki after you just mentioned it. Helper201 (talk) 22:19, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Helper201, IMO their best songs are the unreleased/demos. Anyway, are you familiar with GY!BE? or ASMZ? If not, u should really check em. For starters, try these when u have time: Mountains Made of Steam, Sleep. [Its my habit to recommend my fav artists to anyone I meet😁]. Be well. Tame (talk) 22:25, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tame, no I've never heard of either. I guess I'm generally into heavier stuff than bands like Slowdive, usually variants of rock and metal. Thanks for the recommendations, I'll give them a listen. I'll have a think of what I like that may be in a similar vein and recommend them to you. All the best. Helper201 (talk) 22:36, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tame My suggestions of a similar'ish style:
Happy listening and I'd be interested to see what you think. Helper201 (talk) 23:13, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Helper201, I already know and listened to Mr Kitty (the jennifer colleny video was in my recommended page every other day 2 years ago), and a huge fan of Nirvana. I will let you know about the others after listening. Thanks for the suggestions tho. Tame (talk) 08:15, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Helper201, Man! Listened to all of them. Dilly Dally really shook me up! Got a new sound system, and no better song to try it out. Can u recommend some loud stuff? I'm not really into loud grunge, more of a post rock guy. But would like to explore it. Thanks in advance. Tame (talk) 18:39, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tame, It’s strange how the YT algorithm seemed to pump that Mr Kitty about quite a bit. Nirvana have always been one of my favourite bands. Cool you listened to all of them, cheers! I listened to the songs you linked but they are a bit too slow and long for my tastes. But don't take that personally. I'm very picky with what music clicks with me. A lot of the time I don't like things right away but will go back and listen to them again later and they'll grow on me more over time. I'll probably try some GY!BE? and ASMZ songs at some point. What do you mean by loud stuff? I'm not sure much of what I'm into fits into the specific genre of post-rock. I like pop-punk and stuff like that as well and a range of rock and metal subgenres. Heck I'll listen to some standard and cheesy pop stuff too. I'm not a music purist. Listen to whatever you like and don't care what people think. Being I'm generally a rock and metal person it surprises people when I say I also like the odd cheesy pop stuff or some rap or emo-rap. I used to be more of that kind of person that would deride mainstream stuff as generally being terrible and for the most part I'm still not into it and don't listen to the vast majority of it but my horizons have broadened with age and I'm more open to giving stuff a go I wouldn't normally listen to and trying to be cool with whatever people are into. Helper201 (talk) 22:01, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Live and let live I guess. Do and listen to what makes you happy. As long as it doesn't hurt others do what you want in life. That's the general attitude I try and take with music and life, I guess. There's enough hate and anger in the world and we don't need to add to it with being horrible to people based on stuff like music or personal taste. Helper201 (talk) 22:09, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tame, if you could please explain what you mean by "loud stuff" I'll try and think of anything I know that might fit what I think you mean, if I know anything that fits the bill. Helper201 (talk) 22:26, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Helper201, I mean like Dilly Dally grunge kinda loud. Or even Metal works. You know what, just give me something that will freaking blast my new sound system. Thanks. Tame (talk) 22:30, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Helper201, And ASMZ or GYBE they are the same band. Like with some different members. GYBE takes time, listen to F#A# infinity some night in dark room. And ASMZ is of acquired taste, you first have to become GYBE fan. Even many GYBE fans don't like ASMZ. But as a music freak, u shouldn't really miss Lift Your Skinny Fists Like Antennas to Heaven or F♯ A♯ ∞, these are two of the most critically acclaimed albums of all time. Once u really get into GYBE (takes ages), other musician and band starts to feel hollow. Tame (talk) 22:36, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My introduction to GYBE was through East Hastings. Tame (talk) 22:41, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tame, OK! I gotcha:
@Tame bonus songs:
Helper201 (talk) 23:19, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The not so hidden track: Addicted To Chaos (Remastered 2004) Helper201 (talk) 23:49, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Helper201. Sepultura! Sepultura! Sepultura! Sepultura!. Although I didn't dig the vocals in heavy metals, man, the instrumental, I could literally feel em deep up in my ....cause the couch was vibrating, like for real. And with this bad boy (sony MHC-V83D), you seriously owe some apologies to my neighbors. I'll try the bonus tracks later and let you know. And thank you, big time. Tame (talk) 14:08, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
+the album Tame (talk) 14:13, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don’t add “United Kingdom and Ireland”

DrKay reverted your edits as many. So please don’t add “United Kingdom and Ireland” in king or queen’s birth and died place in some British monarchs articles. Thanks! Usernogood (talk) 02:10, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And don’t add “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland” too. Thanks! Usernogood (talk) 02:19, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And don’t add “Kingdom of Great Britain” too Thanks! Usernogood (talk) 13:41, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Usernogood Can you please explain your point further and why you are posting this? I may have added United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland which was a country between 1801–1922. It depends upon the specific page you are referring to. Per Template:Infobox person#Parameters it clearly states we should add "city, administrative region, country" and "Use the name of the birthplace at the time of birth, e.g.: Saigon (prior to 1976) or Ho Chi Minh City (post-1976)." I am following these recommended Wikipedia guidelines. Helper201 (talk) 21:35, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Helper201 Because place is same. For example “Buckingham Palace, London, England, Kingdom of Great Britain” is same place you see bold text. That why your edits was reverted. Usernogood (talk) 19:22, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Helper201 And Most British monarchs articles is England. Usernogood (talk) 21:55, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 2022

Information icon
Hello, I'm Volten001. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Legalise Cannabis Australia have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. Volten001 talk 14:50, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Volten001. I've compromised and retained the information while moving it and rewording it slightly to emphasise that the issue isn't one where the party itself it taking a particular position. Helper201 (talk) 14:59, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

French political parties

You might be interested into these RfCs (EELV, French Communist Party, Left Party, LFI). It's the same user who edit warred on English and French wikis back in February. We discussed about their edits here. Cheers, Vacant0 (talk) 11:38, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vacant0, thanks for making me aware of this. I have posted a reply and will look into the sources more when I get more time. However, I am not a French speaker or reader, so will be relying on translation tools for the sources. Would you mind posting your thoughts on this - Talk:Good Party#Political position - RfC please? Helper201 (talk) 13:11, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]