User talk:Helper201/Archive 2

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Helper201, No worries, thank you! Darren-M talk 17:19, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@Symmachus Auxiliarus: this was in no way vandalism. Please explain how you think this is vandalism. Helper201 (talk) 22:40, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

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 (talk • contribs) 05:36, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 (talk • contribs) 05:51, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I agree. Let us do that. Ayvind-Bjarnason (talk) Ayvind-Bjarnason (talk) 02:07, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

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)

I did explain why, because it corresponds with their given nationality of British. Helper201 (talk) 17:15, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I repeat - please discuss this on the article talk page. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:16, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

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)

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)

Hi,

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)

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)