User talk:Helper201/Archive 5

Heya, there’s been some dispute on the talk page for Conservative Party (UK) between another editor and I regarding the correct order and predominant description of the Conservative Party (extending to disagreement about the applicability of some of the sources). I, for one, agree with your edit putting ‘centre-right’ first as the predominant descriptor. I wonder if you would wish to include your opinion on the talk page discussion. Cheers, Will Thorpe (talk) 00:04, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Willthorpe, thanks for notifying me. I've responded on that talk page. Helper201 (talk) 20:17, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

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

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

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

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

Sweet6970 (talk) 22:32, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

You are right, I made a mistake at Template:Discrimination. My apologies. Rsk6400 (talk) 08:02, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Rsk6400 no problem. Helper201 (talk) 22:55, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi, since you had contributed to similar discussions in the past, I just wanted to flag a new discusion on Talk:European political party on how to categorise entities that are not European political parties. Happy to get your input! Julius Schwarz (talk) 09:32, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Wikiprojects should generally be limited to the most important facets of a subject. Otherwise, there'd be an overwhelming number on every page, and conversely, every wikiproject would be flooded with barely-related articles. McQueen had HIV+, but he wasn't an AIDS activist or otherwise well-known for having the virus. It doesn't make sense to place him within the AIDS wikiproject. Similarly, although he explored themes of sexuality in his designs, that does not mean his article falls under the topic of sexology. Many artists explore sex and sexuality; it doesn't make them sexologists. People trying to work on articles under that wikiproject are looking for topics like sex education or Alfred Kinsey. The page for the suicide task force under the death project says they are concerned with "suicide rates, causes, philosophy, legislation, prevention, etc" - articles about suicide, not individual people who happened to commit suicide. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:24, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I saw your edit summary for your edit on Natalie Horler, and turns out I started a discussion in the article's talk page to form on consensus on their nationality. Sparkbean (talk) 02:58, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2020s in history is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Decades in history until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Sm8900 (talk) 20:10, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Hubert_Burda with regard to how we should present Hubert Burda's birthplace in the infobox. Any objections to my proposal? Edwardx (talk) 00:12, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, do you mind if I modify your Video Game RfC question (Talk:Video_game#RFC:_lead_image) to say "Which of the following images should replace the current lead image?" Some1 (talk) 04:57, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi Some1, sure no problem. I appreciate you coming here to ask me this and help with it. All the best and thanks for the help. Helper201 (talk) 05:03, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks! Just letting you know too that I've added an image to the gallery (option F). Some1 (talk) 05:13, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Some1 no problem. I've just added two more options. If you could take a look at them and add them to your vote if you support one or both of them that would be appreciated. Helper201 (talk) 05:42, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hellenic_Anarchist . Can you restore Niki's article? Thank you! 130.43.65.198 (talk) 19:30, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Done. Helper201 (talk) 19:37, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

💯 130.43.65.198 (talk) 18:50, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

I removed your addition of a nowrap class inside a horizontal list template which displays genres in the infobox. There is no reason why the genres should be prevented from wrapping. The reader is not inconvenienced by a genre term wrapping down to the next line.

Also, IF this style was needed for some other reason, the correct method is described differently at the very bottom of the instructions at Template:Hlist. Binksternet (talk) 22:51, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Binksternet a genre like progressive rock can appear to some readers as two separate genres if it breaks over two lines. That's why nowrap was introduced. To place it there serves no disadvantage and only helps the reader. Fine if it should be wrapped in a different way. Helper201 (talk) 17:50, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

You can target one or two problematic terms with individual nowrap templates. Binksternet (talk) 18:14, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Binksternet would you mind doing that on one of my edits you reverted please and I'll fix the others? Helper201 (talk) 18:17, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

On the page Women and video games

"In 2008, a Pew Internet & American Life Project study found that among teens, 65% of men and 35% of women describe themselves as daily gamers." missrepresents what the source says: https://web.archive.org/web/20130712192449/http://www.pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2008/PIP_Teens_Games_and_Civics_Report_FINAL.pdf.pdf

1) "Some 65% of daily gamers are male; 35% are female."

Notice, not 35% of females are daily gamers, but 35% of daily gamers are females. Notice, 35%+65%=100%

2) "Boys are significantly more likely to play games daily than girls, with 39% of boys reporting daily game play and 22% of girls reporting the same." So there's 39% of daily gamers among boys, not 65%

+ The table based on 2017 study https://quanticfoundry.com/2017/01/19/female-gamers-by-genre/ Doesn't list Mario Kart anywhere But it does list World of Warcraft as an outlier Transfrogirl (talk) 15:03, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Transfrogirl please in the future use the edit summary to explain your changes. Also be careful of not violating WP:SYNTH. Helper201 (talk) 16:40, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi, coming here as well from the Women and VGs page--second what Helper says, please use edit summaries. I fully thought it was vandalism because you were just undoing edits and on a quick read, I could find the 65% number in the source. Thanks for double checking that number and making the edit. Alyo (chat·edits) 14:04, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I'm sorry, will use the summaries in the future. Transfrogirl (talk) 20:54, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Please focus on adding sourced content to articles, which is going to help our readers more than dumping links. Especially don't dump links on featured articles. It has already been reviewed for comprehensiveness which means that all links that are significantly important to the topic are already linked in the text. Your see also section in this case is failing WP:GLOBAL by focusing excessively on the United States. (t · c) buidhe 07:39, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

buidhe there is nothing wrong with having a see also section, it's a purposeful aspect of most non-biographical Wikipedia pages. In no way was I "dumping links". These links have been selected because they are important to the topic. Finally, no, it does not break WP:GLOBAL. The majority of the links (5 of the 7) are not about the US. Helper201 (talk) 07:43, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

While see also sections are not banned, they are not required either. As any other content they are subjected to WP:ONUS, which means that the editor(s) who want to add the content have to seek consensus if it's disputed. I am asking that you self revert until such time as a consensus to add these links can be shown. (t · c) buidhe 07:47, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

buidhe not "required" and wiping as you did are two completely different things. Just because something is not "required" doesn't meant it can't be included or that it doesn't help the reader to include it. I don't see the presentation of any reasoning that's valid to remove this information. Helper201 (talk) 07:52, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

I've explained my reasoning for opposing it. As there is currently no consensus to keep the see also section, it should be excluded per WP:ONUS. (t · c) buidhe 08:33, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of political parties in the United Kingdom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Localism.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:56, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Please read WP:STATUSQUO - you have to demonstrate that your disputed edit is appropriate before reinserting it. Please also read the essay WP:BRD and please understand that you don't need to do three reverts to edit-war. And after you've read those things please self-revert your disputed edit. Simonm223 (talk) 16:38, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Simonm223 the status quo is not this. This was inserted on 25 April (less than a month ago), while discussions on the matter were ongoing. Its not the long-standing version of the page. Helper201 (talk) 16:46, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Nonsense. Self-revert. Simonm223 (talk) 16:47, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Well, that wasn't very constructive. Helper201 (talk) 16:48, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Your claim that a month isn't long enough to count as status-quo is self-dealing to protect a disputed edit that you edit warred back in. My reticence to engage in edit warring means I'm going to lean on you to appropriately follow policy. It doesn't mean I have to mince words. Simonm223 (talk) 16:51, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

For one, its less than a month. Two, if you think that less than a month is enough to warrant status quo classification then open up a discussion with others and see what they say. I've had many such discussions on similar matters and I've seen plenty of people point to this sort of time frame not counting as the long-standing version or status quo. It’s not about "mincing words", saying "Nonsense. Self-revert." gives zero room for discussion or dialogue; it has no constructiveness to it whatsoever. This is just someone that has shoehorned in disputed content that is undergoing talk page discussion that should be left out and remain to the long-standing version. Helper201 (talk) 16:58, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

It's rather irrelevant. A second editor has reverted you. I expect this is the end of this. Simonm223 (talk) 17:07, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Hey there, just an FYI, but just because a local consensus blocked a sourced edit on one page in a manner that appears on the surface to be non-neutral does not mean other pages must reinforce that non-neutral local consensus. I get the sense you were trying to do the right thing but the edit you made to Far-right politics was not required via any Wikipedia policy. Simonm223 (talk) 11:32, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi Simonm223. Indeed, however, there has been a lot of controversy and debate over lead images on the page far-right politics anyway, with no consensus for this image. So, if there isn't agreement on its respective page whether or not it is even far-right, then that seems even more of a reason not to use it. I know we aren't required to follow a local consensus, but in this case when there's been so much back-and-forth over the issue of the lead images anyway, it seems messy to include an image of a group there isn't even itself an agreement on. I'd encourage you to go to the talk page of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and advocate for it to only be labelled as far-right if that is what you believe. Helper201 (talk) 11:46, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Yeah we have some pretty strong sources for them being far-right. The Economist tends not to jump to conclusions, for instance. I know that a lot of pages about Indian politics get brigaded and I have neither the time nor inclination to throw myself into that blender and deal with a half a dozen spurious AE complaints for my trouble. But I will work to keep accurate information on the general politics pages. Simonm223 (talk) 11:59, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

There is an RFC on whether to simply label it far-right on its talk page at the moment, you could quickly write a supporting vote there if that's what you believe. Helper201 (talk) 16:27, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

We need to Anti-Zionist as ideology. Please don't WP:UNDUE. 2001:1C01:4016:C600:5DEE:1C44:3F44:721A (talk) 18:11, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

The source you provided (turkishminute) is not listed at WP:RSP as a reliable source. Even if it was, one source would not be due weight for infobox inclusion. You would need multiple sources of known reliability explicitly stating what you are claiming. Helper201 (talk) 18:16, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Rambling Rambler (talk) 19:41, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi Rambling Rambler. I'm not sure there's much I could add to what you've already said. I'll wait until a third-party/administrator has spoken on the discussion and put in any input if I think it would be worthwhile. Thanks for letting me know. Helper201 (talk) 21:51, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions to Collective (organisation). Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Collective (organisation) (2nd nomination) ended with this outcome. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Owen× ☎ 23:25, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi, OwenX. I think you may have made a mistake, as it’s not my article. Neither did I create it. Helper201 (talk) 14:13, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, the message above is an automated one, generated by the draftification gadget. You show as having made 33 edits to that page, so I included you on the notification list. Feel free to ignore. Thanks! Owen× ☎ 14:19, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Ontario Liberal Party shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Mr. No Funny Nickname (talk) 00:45, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

The article Ani Townsend has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Local councillors are not generally considered notable. Nothing here demonstrates broader notability.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bondegezou (talk) 10:16, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ani Townsend is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ani Townsend until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Bondegezou (talk) 14:07, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi! I took the liberty of deleting your addition, since the article already listed quite a few lesbian terms. The connection between yuri and lesbianism is quite obvious, and therefore listing all possible WLW terms other than lesbian literature or womance would be excessive. Solaire the knight (talk) 13:43, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi Solaire the knight. I don't see the problem with adding a single link to the see also section. It's not a particularly long see also section and it doesn't make the section any more difficult to read or navigate to include one more link. It only better helps inform the reader. I agree the connection between yuri and lesbianism is quite obvious, however, I linked sapphism, which isn't a commonly known term (unlike lesbianism). Helper201 (talk) 13:47, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

This word is used as an umbrella term for all women who are attracted to other women regardless of their identity, so it's another term related to lesbian attraction. So it's basically another way to point out yuri's connection to lesbianism, which has been said several times already. If you want, I'll make a separate thread on the anime and manga project forum about it. Solaire the knight (talk) 13:51, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Its just for one it’s not a commonly known term unlike lesbianism. Secondly sapphism covers romantic love and is not limited to sexuality, which to my understanding lesbianism is generally focused on sexuality. So, this is quite different from lesbianism and the sexual angle and therefore fits well to have in the see also section given the romantic themes in yuri, as it sapphism too is not a purely about sexuality or lesbianism but relationships between females. Helper201 (talk) 13:59, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

These are already specific nuances. Just like earlier in the article, references were added to homosexuality in Japan and sexual minorities in Japan. Which are not synonyms in the literal sense of the word, but were still devoted to very overlapping topics. Okay, I'll create a topic in the project discussion with a request to regroup the section, because it clearly needs planning. You can leave your opinion there. Solaire the knight (talk) 14:05, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

UPD. Discussion is here. I've reverted your link back to the list discussion to avoid any edit wars. Solaire the knight (talk) 14:15, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rachel Millward, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachel Millward until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello.

I immediately found multiple academic citations labeling the party as far-left. The only exception was Oxford's guide to German politics, and they use "Far-left to left-wing" rather than simply "left-wing". Looking at the talk page... I don't see much consensus for exclusion.

Can list if needed. SickNWristed (talk) 12:47, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi SickNWristed, the place to address this is Talk:Die Linke, not here. Thanks. Helper201 (talk) 12:50, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Why did you revert the non-infobox changes? SickNWristed (talk) 12:53, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

SickNWristed Because I think this is in accordance with the consensus at Talk:Die Linke. Again, please take the matter there. I will not respond to any more posts on the matter here. Helper201 (talk) 12:56, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Just wrote on there. SickNWristed (talk) 13:42, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Helper201, I see that you removed sovereigntism from the infobox of the Patriots for Europe and from their description on the page dedicated to political groups in the European Parliament. Can you help me understand your decision? You wrote that it "is not cited on its page as a political ideology". While "sovereigntism" is not exactly cited, the first page of the group's website states both: "With a commitment to national sovereignty..." and "The Patriots stand firmly for national sovereignty, ...". That is two mentions of national sovereignty at the heart of their own description of their political project, and it feels to me that supporting national sovereignty is exactly what sovereigntism is about. Am I missing something? Julius Schwarz (talk) 12:21, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi Julius Schwarz. Sure thing. The section of the infobox I removed it from was the political ideology section. Sovereigntism is not cited as a political ideology, so it doesn't belong in a section specifically for political ideologies. The issue of why I removed it from those aforementioned sections was only because sovereigntism isn't a political ideology and that's what those sections are for. Also, third-party sources are much preferred over first-party ones. On a side-note, a self-claim alone would not be enough for infobox inclusion, not that I'm saying that's the only source calling the party sovereigntist in this case, it just isn't a political ideology, that's all. Hope that clears things up. All the best. Helper201 (talk) 16:51, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Helper201, thanks for the reply. I note that you applied the same principle to the ESN group as well. Allow me to follow up with another question, though: what defines a political ideology? Because, while the article on sovereigntism does not start by saying it is an ideology, the short description indeed says "ideology". The French version calls it a "doctrine idéologique", while the Italian version refers to it as a "posizione politica", which all seems synonymous with ideology. I certainly would say that it is a political ideology, but could perhaps be convinced otherwise. How do you draw the line? Julius Schwarz (talk) 20:38, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

No problem Julius Schwarz. We go by what reliable third-party sources state are political ideologies. If a page is cited using such sources which define it as a political ideology, then that's fine. Helper201 (talk) 23:34, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi, regarding your view on the above article that we cannot link to the crown. Why include the quotation at all if we have absolutely no idea what they mean? Jdcooper (talk) 21:34, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Jdcooper, I think the cars and coal information is worth keeping and the crown bit just happens to be part of the same quote where it wouldn't read right to cut that off. Helper201 (talk) 21:36, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Do you seriously believe the "crown" part is ambiguous? The Czech monarchist is a fringe curio notable by its unique single-issue. The question of whether to adopt the Euro is a fundamental policy debate in Czech economics. Why would they be referring to a monarchy? Jdcooper (talk) 23:18, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Jdcooper, its not about what I believe. Editors should not be interpreting the meaning behind what is stated in sources. We stick to explicitly what sources say and don't make assumptions or presumptions, not matter how obvious they may seem. WP:SYNTH. Helper201 (talk) 03:15, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

You added a BBC article to support the statement that people with autism live shorter lives than those without on the autism page. First of all, please use the underlying report to ensure you adhere to WP:MEDRS. Second, the report does not make this statement, it is for people with learning disabilities overall. This is not the same. CFCF (talk) 20:20, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

You deleted my addition of Social democracy in the ideology section of Syriza. The thing is, under Famellos, who sources consistently say is a moderate, the party is, at least partly, social democratic. Please explain why you deleted that, so that we can have a short conversation. I agree that democratic socialism should still be there, but along with social democracy, just like with the SFIO in the 1950sAbotekap (talk) 12:34, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi Abotekap. I removed it because it wasn't cited by reliable third-party sources. Claims need to be cited otherwise they break WP:OR. Helper201 (talk) 01:00, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Sources saying Syriza is social democratic are difficult to find, because its rhetoric is still democratic socialist(though not populist). However, based on its last year in government and its election manifesto, while also considering its further moderation since, we can say that Syriza has arguably(also) become a social democratic party. However, because it is Wikipedia’s policy, I’ll try to find a credible source Abotekap (talk) 15:03, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

I see it is included in the sidebar as related. Doug Weller talk 16:29, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Hey, consensus was recently reached under the Reform UK page on whether the / indicators should be used on the membership number for the corresponding party.

This is therefore the standard format across UK political party pages, please let me know if I'm wrong or if you would like to discuss it further. Finlayy (talk) 22:23, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Finlayy Wikipedia-wide consensus across various Wikipedia pages is not done via one article's talk page. Helper201 (talk) 18:59, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Category:October 2025 in Wales indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, 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 removing the speedy deletion tag. ✗plicit 14:12, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Oooh Kay. So why don't you revert the change to the module then? Or at least take it up with @Chessrat? And remove it from other articles like Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election and Leadership approval opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election. Or would that be too much trouble? Much easier to keep reverting other people's contributions than to make positive ones of your own. Oh, by the way, you forgot to remove the colour from the Councillors in the infobox. Please be consistent even if you find it difficult to be thorough. ~2025-32508-17 (talk) 17:54, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Just thought of something else. Where, exactly, does one cite a "reliable source" for a party colour? ~2025-32508-17 (talk) 18:13, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Chessrat, we should remove the colour for Your Party (UK) from Module:Political party/Y until there is a reliable third-party source that we can use to cite its official colour. Helper201 (talk) 19:55, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Wales Green Party shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing a page's content back to how you believe it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree with your changes. Please stop editing the page and use the talk page to work toward creating a version of the page that represents consensus among the editors involved. Wikipedia provides a page explaining how this is accomplished. If discussions reach an impasse, you can request help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution such as a third opinion. In some cases, you may wish to request page protection while a discussion to resolve the dispute is ongoing.

If you continue edit warring, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, or whether it involves the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also, please keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule— if things indicate that you intend to continue reverting content on the page. Bejakyo (talk) 16:01, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi Helper201! I noticed that you recently made an edit at Suicide among people with autism and marked it as "minor", but it may not have been. On Wikipedia, "minor edit" refers only to superficial edits that could never be disputed, such as fixing typos or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not minor, even if it only concerns a single word. Thank you. DoItFastDoItUrgent (talk) 15:49, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi DoItFastDoItUrgent, I'm sorry, you're right, I shouldn't have done that. I'm not sure if it was done automatically when moving the page because I never mark any edits as minor, but if I did then my apologies. I’ll try to make sure it doesn’t happen again. Helper201 (talk) 17:37, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Hello DoItFastDoItUrgent (and hi Helper201), if I may: Neither is it a problem if someone makes multiple edits and marks one of them as minor, nor was this a manual action. Please check Special:Log/move for a list of all recent page moves, click the title of some target pages, check their history and try to find one where the page move wasn't automatically marked as minor. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:57, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

(ironically, your own move revert was also marked as minor.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:59, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

You have recently made edits related to the results of any national or sub-national election. This is a standard message to inform you that the results of any national or sub-national election is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:50, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits that could be considered controversial. I believe you have a registered account but made your edits while logged out from it. Please be mindful Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts prohibits editors from using alternate accounts (including temporary ones) to mislead, deceive, disrupt, or undermine consensus as detailed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry § Inappropriate uses of alternative accounts. You can avoid issues related to this by making sure you are logged in before editing. Thank you. asilvering (talk) 08:58, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello! I noticed you moved some templates around at Hannah Spencer in order to correct a typo in a previous edit summary. Instead of doing that, which puts them into the incorrect order, please use a dummy edit instead for future situations. Thank you. {{GearsDatapack|talk|contribs}} 18:03, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi GearsDatapack you're right. I was trying to make a minor edit but I made a mistake in thinking the correct order being the other way around. The order you mentioned is correct. I thought doing something small like that could act as a dummy edit while I made a clarification with my edit summary, alas I got the order wrong. Thanks for clearing that up. Helper201 (talk) 18:07, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

No worries, now you know! {{GearsDatapack|talk|contribs}} 19:45, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Green Party (Ireland), may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A dates error. References show this error when one of the date-containing parameters is incorrectly formatted. Please edit the article to correct the date and ensure it is formatted to follow the Wikipedia Manual of Style's guidance on dates. (Fix | Ask for help)

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, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 16:15, 2 March 2026 (UTC)