User talk:Helper201/Archive 1

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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: TheInternational.org.uk - Online versions of the media group's papers can be found: archives.theinternational.org.uk and alsahawat.com. 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)

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)

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

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)

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:

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 → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Me-123567-Me (talk) 21:17, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

'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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I saw nothing in that source that explicitly said the party is Marxist-Leninist. Helper201 (talk) 06:10, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.  czar 22:53, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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.  czar 05:06, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Hi mate. I changed the political leaning of The Guardian from centre-left to left-wing, sourcing this YouGov poll, https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/03/07/how-left-or-right-wing-are-uks-newspapers/. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Please could you post something on Talk:Ksenia Sobchak explaining your reasoning and showing some evidence.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:12, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/wikipedia-editors-ban-daily-mail-source-citation-unreliable-mail-online-a7570856.html Helper201 (talk) 11:30, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

Thanks C. W. Gilmore (talk) 20:33, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Hi Helper201 . I noticed that you recently used famousbirthdays.com as a source for information in a biography article, Candice Swanepoel. Please note that there is general consensus that famousbirthdays.com 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 Models.com are similary unreliable. If you disagree, let's discuss it. Thanks. --Ronz (talk) 03:38, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

This should hopefully be helpful here - Wikipedia:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom#Sport. Helper201 (talk) 00:41, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)