User talk:Helper201

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

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

No body
The mention of the body does not say that she is dead. But it does connect to her late father’s wish to give her a proper Christian burial. If you are willing to accept that, pls undo previous edit. If not, pls mention in the Talk.

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

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

Edit war?
@Helper201, do you want to go to an edit war in the article Awami League? In my last edit I added 4-5 new references about secularism. Yes, you had told me that secularism isn't perfect for AL and I also checked the references given by you. But is AL an ideologyless party? How long we hide the ideology? If you really have any problem with secularism then open a discussion please. Or I am about to restore my previous edits. Because your behaviour seems to be an edit war to me.

In South Asian politics, it's not new to take pragmatic positions by the centrist & centre-left parties. INC in India, PPP in Pakistan & MDP in Maldives were also accused for shifting their position during the power. I have also reference whrere Sheikh Hasina claimed her party to be pragmatist, that's why they have abondend Nationalism, Democracy & Socialism. In the secularism section, I have explained the party's position on secularism and in that section & social position section I have also explained AL's conservative & pro-Islamic behaviour. Remember Congress Party also bowed to Hindu politics during it's tenure.

So, if you are still trying to force your own opinion in the article, it may be appear to me as an edit war. Wiki N Islam (talk) 08:28, 20 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I've provided counter-evidence with multiple reliable sources on the article's talk page. Until there's a consensus it should be left out. I don't think just you and I are going to come to an agreement about that. I also don't see the problem with not having any ideologies in the infobox. It’s better to leave the ideologies out that have ones in the infobox that aren’t accurate or are contested with evidence against them. Helper201 (talk) 10:35, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of National Popular Consciousness for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article National Popular Consciousness 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 Articles for deletion/National Popular Consciousness 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. D.S. Lioness (talk) 18:09, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Removal of academic sources
I don't understand why you decided to remove my addition to the introduction based on academic sources. At the very least you could have merged it with the previous text - albeit clearly inferior in terms of documentation. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Niki_(Greek_political_party)&diff=prev&oldid=1232540649 D.S. Lioness (talk) 17:19, 4 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Apologies, this was unintentional. Helper201 (talk) 14:51, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Marxism can be a political ideology
Sources:, & the Oxford Handbook of Political Ideology (pg. 62)

Citing the fact that Wikipedia's article on Marxism does not give Marxism as a political ideology is not reason to reject Marxism as a political ideology. After all, Wikipedia is not a reliable source.

If you disagree with the above, then I'd cite the fact that Marxism is included under List of political ideologies.

I suspect that many would make the argument that Marxism is not an ideology but a theory, but imo this would be obfuscating the point; the point being that 'Marxism' is a core component of the party's viewpoint. Imo, arguing that a viewpoint is different to an ideology is to make a distinction without a difference. FropFrop (talk) 14:54, 9 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Then please try and get this cited on the Marxism page if you think it’s an ideology. Then if you are not reverted, I see no problem with then adding it to the infobox of a political party. Helper201 (talk) 06:58, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It's obviously a contentious issue going off of their talk page archives, so I'd rather that you provide evidence that it cannot be an ideology. After all, just because a Wikipedia article doesn't say it is true, doesn't mean it's not true, per Wikipedia is not a reliable source. I have provided sources that Marxism can be an ideology so I think it fair to include that in the banner. FropFrop (talk) 03:01, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If its contentious then is best not to include it. There's likely good reason if users are objecting to it being labelled an ideology. I'm not making a claim about the reliability of Wikipedia, it would just be completely inconsistent and unnecessarily contentious to add something like this to an ideology section of an infobox and therefore I object to it. Helper201 (talk) 11:49, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Setting an expectation of perfect consistency on Wikipedia - especially when we're discussing the topic of ideology when Marxism is involved - is impractical imo.
 * For example:
 * The relationships of Social Democracy, Marxism and Democratic Socialism are also contentious, but that doesn't mean we should avoid writing about their relationships.
 * Ideology says that "An ideology is a set of beliefs or philosophies attributed to a person or group of persons, especially those held for reasons that are not purely epistemic", which means Marxism, as a political philosophy, is an ideology.
 * List of political ideologies includes Marxism.
 * FropFrop (talk) 04:49, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

About the recent Keir Starmer edits
I can confirm that I have no relation to the other account or IP adress. I agree that it is suspicious but it has nothing to do with me. ThingsCanOnlyGetWetter (talk) 15:12, 10 July 2024 (UTC)