User talk:Helper201/Archive 2

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


 * It is a noun in of itself. It is consistent across Wikipedia to use the hyphenated version, why should this be any different? Just see the page far-right politics, where it is clearly hyphenated. This is the way it has long stood on this page. If you want to change this you should be the one going on that talk page and forming a consensus, not changing randomly related pages to the main page on a whim. Helper201 (talk) 23:44, 29 January 2019 (UTC)


 * The noun is "far right", without hyphen, as seen in sentences like "The British far right rose out of the fascist movement." When a compound noun is used attributively as a noun adjunct, thus functioning as an adjective, many style guides advise the insertion of a hyphen. So an offer that is only valid for a limited time then becomes a "limited-time offer". But it would be incorrect to write that the offer is only valid "for a limited-time". One should only write "far-right" with a hyphen when it modifies a following noun. See also English compound. --Lambiam 14:55, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

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


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

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

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

Your submission at Articles for creation: Dead Pixels (TV series) (April 3)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Stevey7788 was:

The comment the reviewer left was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Dead Pixels (TV series) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Dead Pixels (TV series), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "db-self" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
 * If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Dead_Pixels_(TV_series) Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Stevey7788&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Dead_Pixels_(TV_series) reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

&mdash; Stevey7788 (talk) 11:19, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Dead Pixels (TV series) has been accepted
 Dead Pixels (TV series), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer. Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:33, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Dead_Pixels_(TV_series) help desk] .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

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


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

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

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


 * I did not remove any content, you did. I was restoring the cited content that you removed. I explained in both my edit summaries why I did so, directing you to the talk page where the matter was adressed over 9 months ago. I also highlighted the Content removal rule, which you seemed to ignore. Helper201 (talk) 06:40, 2 July 2019 (UTC)


 * It is already finished discuss. If you want to add "Social democracy", then just try to open new discuss in talk page. Thanks. --Garam (talk) 12:25, 2 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I brought it up on the talk page over 9 months ago. Again, please read the last two paragraphs on the talk page. You have made no attempt to add to that despite your constant reverts. Please also take note of Content removal, which you keep breaking. You are the only person that has a problem with this, its correctly cited and you have no consenus for removal. Helper201 (talk) 03:31, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

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

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


 * Hi, Jeff6045. Thank you for brining this up here. I have made edits that I think are right according to Wikipedia's rules and have added a comment to the talk page of the page you mentioned. Opposition party claims certainly are not appropriate to use as a factual claim. Most media sources do have political leanings. As long as they are not opinion pieces this usually does not mean they cannot be used as a citation. The more important point is if the source is considered reliable. For example, both The Daily Telegraph and the Daily Mail are politically conservative UK newspapers. The Daily Telegraph, despite its political bias, is generally considered a reliable source for citations on Wikipedia, but the Daily Mail is not. These two pages: WP:RSP and WP:DEPS are helpful for identifying what sources are not reliable. Of course this is from the English language version of Wikipedia, so these pages cover English sources. I don't know but I guess there are similar pages on the Korean and Japanese language Wikipedia's identifying unreliable sources.


 * Also just a few minor pointers. I have noticed you don't sign some of your posts. Please always sign your talk page posts using the four wavy line symbol (shown above the edit summary box). It is also helpful to use the : symbol before a talk page post when you are the next poster to help organise the section. For example the first commentor places no symbol, then the first reply one : then second reply, :: third reply ::: etc (hope that is clear and not confusing). It is also recommended not to contact specific ediotrs regarding disputes because the editor you contect may be biased in favour of a certain person. When there is an ongoing dispute you usually want to add a request for comment tag to the relevant talk page section, more infomation can be found out about that here - Requests for comment.


 * Hope that helps. Please don't heistate to drop me another message if you have any questions. Helper201 (talk) 13:09, 28 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank for your advice. I think your advice really helped me much to edit WP article. Additionally I'll always make sure my post to be signed.
 * Again I want to thank for your effort.
 * Jeff6045 02:54, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Jeff6045 02:54, 29 September 2019 (UTC)


 * , no problem, you're welcome. Helper201 (talk) 11:00, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:People's Party of Canada
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:People's Party of Canada. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 02:21, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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


 * I think it is important we keep to the WP:SYNTHESIS rule. The Independent has not endorsed any political party in the last two UK general elections and declares no support for any UK political party. Opinion articles are opinions of individual editors and do not necessarily represent those of the publication itself. As seen in the citation provided the publication generally takes a liberal view but individual editors working for the publication do vary in their political views, although a liberal centrist theme is common. However, when it comes to The Guardian, they have openly and offically declared their support for Labour at the last two general elections, as can be seen here - https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/ng-interactive/2019/dec/10/the-guardian-view-on-general-election-2019-a-fleeting-chance-to-stop-boris-johnson-in-his-tracks - and here - https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/ng-interactive/2017/jun/02/the-guardian-view-on-our-vote-its-labour . These pages - Endorsements in the 2019 United Kingdom general election and Endorsements in the 2017 United Kingdom general election - you may also find useful. Cheers. Helper201 (talk) 02:20, 28 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I'll just go by the Independent articles of opinion that were ever written, despite the journalists likely being of the Tyrannosaurus rex variety, and say that most of the old fossils whom wrote them are moving pretty LD/APNI. That's what I infer. Is inferring brought up in WP:SYN? SamRathbone (talk) 18:33, 29 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Infering something not explicitly stated by a source comes under both original reaserch and synthesis. Helper201 (talk) 21:47, 29 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Right, ta for the headup. SamRathbone (talk) 19:46, 30 December 2019 (UTC)


 * No problem, happy to help. Helper201 (talk) 19:47, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

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


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

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

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

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

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


 * 1 Excludes "Wales" and has the country as the UK
 * 1 Is inconsistent ("UK" is on place of birth or death, but not the other way round)
 * 2 See fit to tell the reader that Wales is in the UK
 * 17 Infoboxes exclude "UK" or "United Kingdom" and just use Wales or England

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

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

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

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


 * Hi,, I think this should be helpful - Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Encyclopædia Britannica is listed on the sources table on that page, where for this source it states -


 * "The Encyclopædia Britannica (including its online edition, Encyclopædia Britannica Online) is a tertiary source with a strong reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Most editors prefer reliable secondary sources over the Encyclopædia Britannica when available. In January 2009, the Encyclopædia Britannica Online began accepting content submissions from the general public.[12] Although these submissions undergo the encyclopedia's editorial process, some editors believe that content from non-staff contributors is less reliable than the encyclopedia's staff-authored content. Content authorship is disclosed in the article history."


 * These pages should hopefully be helpful as well - WP:WPNOTRS and Template:Cite encyclopedia. All the best, Helper201 (talk) 14:06, 3 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your help! I'll take a look. Ezhao02 (talk) 15:50, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

On the subject of Sanders "drop out" vs "suspended" wording
I am copy-pasting what I wrote in Talk:2020_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries/Archive_9:


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

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


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

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

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


 * Please do not misrepresent me. As my edit summary described my alteration was to fix the way the infobox was formatted, it had nothing to do with the sources. I just reverted back to an older version of the page which restored some citations. I did not know there was discrepancy with any of the sources validity. Helper201 (talk) 20:04, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * There is an open thread (since February 2020!!) about how WP:UNDUE applies to those labels also "illuminating" about the "wrong" (so to speak...) use Alexanderjames1990 recently gave to that source. The reliability of the latter has not been disputed. Sadly, not unlike the case of AfD, editors edit without engaging into the talk page talk.--Asqueladd (talk) 20:14, 24 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I do not understand what you mean, either here or on the article's talk page. Your use of English is not clear. To try to make myself clear - I was not trying to remove or add anything. Either right-wing or far-right. I was just attempting to change the infobox to the standard layout/format, that's all. It was my mistake to add sources back that may or may not be suitable. Helper201 (talk) 20:20, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Sure, my English is certainly improvable. I will try to pull my best Tarzan impersonation: Are you still not grasping any of the points above?--Asqueladd (talk) 20:25, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * There is an open thread about this that you did not care to visit (not since yesterday, not since last week... since 4–5 months ago).
 * The reliability of the source is not disputed.
 * The way the source is used is wrong (probably malicious), as the source does not back up the label.


 * I'm sensing some hostility here. Please remember WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL.
 * I have read the talk page, as I said I do not understand what you mean here or there.
 * I have no opinion on the sources. I cannot stress that enough. I have not looked into them. My edit had nothing to do with what source does or does not support what. I was simply correcting the way the political position section is correctly formatted / set out. We say "X" position or "X to Y" position e.g. "Right-wing", or "Right-wing to far-right". We don't list political positions with one under the other.


 * I would suggest opening an WP:RFC on the matter on the talk page for more input from other editors. Helper201 (talk) 20:38, 24 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Your aggressive tone constitutes a personal attack. I double-checked and see that Helper201 did not change anything related to sourcing in the article. I think you should now apologise for an unfounded attack. — kashmīrī  TALK  20:37, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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


 * 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 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)

Page protection
Hi. 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 . 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)
 * , No worries, thank you! Darren-M   talk  17:19, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Andrew Forrest
Most Australian articles utilise the 'guidance' of



- 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)

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

List of television shows considered the best moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, List of television shows considered the best, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published, and was previously deleted. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. See also 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)

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


 * Hi, . 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)

WikiProject Universal Basic Income
Where was discussed? There are now a lot of broken categories. The documentation has also been lost. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (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)

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


 * 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)

October 2020
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

Important Notice
Doug Weller talk 16:27, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

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


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

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

Edit to "Alba Party"
Hello, I just wanted to let you know "Nationalist" vs "Independence-supporting" has been discussed in the talk page of the article. The description "Nationalist" is also extensively used in reliable sources, including those used in the article, both from political commentators and journalists, and it has been used to describe party members in the past; 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, 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)


 * , 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)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:2021 disestablishments in Scotland


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

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

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

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

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


 * Hi, 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)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:2021 disestablishments in Scotland


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

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

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


 * , 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)

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

Disambiguation link notification for August 5
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Video game, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stress.

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

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

Template:Socialism in the UK
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 Dispute resolution noticeboard for the third party :D. Happy future editing! Jamzze (talk) 19:26, 18 October 2021 (UTC)