User talk:Helper201/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

RfC at ANO 2011

I speedy closed your RfC at Talk:ANO 2011 since it violated virtually all guidelines on starting an RfC, including but not limited to leading questions and the fact that it has been ONE month since the last closure, with nobody starting the slightest bit of additional discussion since then. I'm not sure if I can technically do this, but I'm fairly confident the point remains the same regardless. Fermiboson (talk) 00:05, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, I certainly disagree with those assertions. The whole point was questioning the validity of the last the last rfc, so when that rfc happened is neither here nor there. And actually yes, there was another person that started a new topic on the talk page specifically titled "Denial of multiple reliable sources", so I'm clearly not the only person that thinks this. I don’t think you do have the right to do this. You're not an administrator and with all due respect you've been on this platform for less than a year. Helper201 (talk) 10:13, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I acknowledge the latter point; however, your record does not exactly seem to be clean either. I’d like to note, in particular, WP:1AM which appears to be the case here, notwithstanding the IP you mentioned which only you responded to, and hasn’t said anything else. The closure of the last RfC (which was admittedly also by a non-admin, but nobody’s challenged it) has already expressed concern at the speed at which new RfCs on the same thing were being held. Moreover, the question was definitely leading (“can editors’ views hold precedence over…” holds the implicit assumption that reliable sources do support the claim, which was the entire dispute in the first place); one does not need to spend fifteen years on wiki to see that. I hold that it was a very improper RfC and non-admin closures should not be reverted only on the basis of the fact that the closer was not an admin. If you still think that an admin would view this differently, you are very welcome to ask for one; I would be careful about WP:FORUMSHOP however. Fermiboson (talk) 09:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Workers Party of Britain

Please stop undoing my edit on the Workers Party of Britain page. You reasoning for undoing the edits are false, as the source I provided clearly says what I claim it says, all you have to do is read it. I’m trying to be nice so I’m telling you here now, but if you refuse to stop I will have to report you to an admin for vandalism. 2A02:C7C:A05A:BA00:DDD2:8FB5:6621:D7ED (talk) 01:30, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

The source does not explicitly state what you are saying it does, which breaks WP:SYNTH. I've read it. Helper201 (talk) 01:36, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

The source says "However, developments since that time have led the party to overturn that decision and to withdraw our members’ efforts from the Workers party project, which we believe has failed in its stated aim of becoming a truly broad movement within which communists could work openly, transforming itself into a left-social-democratic vehicle for bourgeois parliamentarism and anticommunism." That is obviously not an explicit statement that the Workers Party of Britain is ideologically communist, nor Marxist–Leninist, nor anti-revisionist, as you have so claimed. Helper201 (talk) 01:41, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Neither of the sources say what the infobox said, so your edit was correct Helper. BobFromBrockley (talk) 03:53, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Hyphen in "left-wing"

Hi Helper201, I see that you reverted my edit to Left Party (Sweden), in which I deleted the hyphen in the phrase "left wing" used as a noun.

I explained my rationale in my edit summary: "no hyphen in 'left wing' as a standalone noun phrase, as opposed to the compound modifier 'left-wing' used as an adjective; see MOS:HYPHEN".

You reverted with the edit summary: "You should really get a consensus for such a change on the talk page of left-wing politics page (where it is hyphenated throughout that main/primary page) before implementing this change on other pages."

There is no conflict between my edit and the usage in the left-wing politics article. As I explained in my edit summary:

• "Left wing" as a noun phrase should have no hyphen.
• "Left-wing" as an adjective (a compound modifier) should have a hyphen.

This is standard English usage. See MOS:HYPHEN for the explanation in Wikipedia's style guide.

The left-wing politics article never uses "left wing" as a noun phrase! Every single occurrence of "left-wing" in that article is an adjective phrase—it modifies a noun, as in "left-wing politics" or "left-wing thought" or "left-wing nationalism"—and hence properly includes a hyphen.

On the other hand, the Left Party (Sweden) article uses "left wing" as a noun phrase in the sentence "It stands on the left wing of the political spectrum." That use should not include a hyphen, because it is a noun phrase. —Bkell (talk) 03:04, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Bkell, okay, my apologies. Thanks for the explanation and happy editing. Helper201 (talk) 03:36, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Sophie Anderson

Hi there, I am from Sophie’s family and I can confirm she died on 30th november 2023. Please see the talk pages on Sophie’s page. There are no reliable references stating her date via the media as we have not publicly announced anything regarding Sophie, her death or her life, as we want to remain anonymous. I hope this helps. Thankyou Anonymousfamily (talk) 09:39, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Anonymousfamily, firstly I'd like to say I'm so sorry for your loss. Thank you for reaching out to me about her and helping to honour her memory by making sure we get the facts right. As I'm sure you'll understand an anonymous message is not enough for us to use as evidence of a death date. However, I will remove her stated death date of December and write a note asking for a death date not to be added unless and until a reliable source can confirm a specific date for us. We can then use that on the page as citation. I hope this is useful for you. If you have any further questions, please feel free to message me here. Wishing you, your family and everyone who knew Sophie all the best. Helper201 (talk) 20:10, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Scottish Greens

Hello!

I just wanted to pop by and say thanks for editing (/ subediting, perhaps?) my edits to the Greens article. I am dyselxic, so a lot of the grammar stuff, even with a good look, is always rough!

Should be over soon, I just got really bothered that a party in government had such a lackluster article. Nordrhein-Westfalen-CanlntoSpace (talk) 06:31, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Nordrhein-Westfalen-CanlntoSpace, no problem and thanks for your edits on the page. I'd recommend before making edits for the sake of spelling and grammar to first type up your edits in a Microsoft Word document so it can help detect errors, then copy and paste the edit into the Wikipedia article after. All the best. Helper201 (talk) 18:57, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Ah, good shout. Never thought of that! Nordrhein-Westfalen-CanlntoSpace (talk) 01:31, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Too long

This page is far too long; please archive most of it (see my talk page for an example and let me know if you need help). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:17, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing could you tell me how to do that please? Alternatively, if it’s easy for you to do would you mind doing it for me, please? Helper201 (talk) 17:19, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Done, in this edit. Some time in the next few hours a bot will sweep all the old discussions into a number of sub pages; then will check every day and archive any that have not been edited for 28 days (though at least four will always remain on this page). Note also the navigation box at the top of this page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:31, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

UFP/PPP - South Korea

I know the party merged with minor parties, but did it *merge* (i.e. all parties disbanded, with a new party founded) or was it simply a rename of the predecessor party? If it were the latter, then shouldn't the current party be merged with the predecessor party? ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 17:22, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

ValenciaThunderbolt, I'm not sure. Unfortunately, I can't read Korean so I have to go off of Korean news sources in English or use translation tools. The coverage of minor Korean parties in English sources is, from what I can see, quite limited, and it’s difficult to distinguish the reliability of sources that cover Korean politics in depth. Helper201 (talk) 10:14, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

ValenciaThunderbolt, this source - [1] - seems to maybe indicate the former. Helper201 (talk) 10:41, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

ValenciaThunderbolt, here is another - [2]. Helper201 (talk) 10:42, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Helper201, I was actually talking about the merger of the minor parties that merged with LKP/Saenuri to create UFP/PPP. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 13:37, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

ValenciaThunderbolt, oh yeah, sorry, my mistake. I'm not sure in regards to that. I'll let you know if I find anything worthwhile out about it. Helper201 (talk) 14:09, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Helper201, thanks :) ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 14:18, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Just a few questions for you, if you don't mind.

Hey, I wanted to first thank you for helping me out with the Israel articles, but I had a couple questions for you.

First and foremost, do you know Hebrew? Thanks. Mr manor11 (talk) 20:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

No problem. No, I don't know Hebrew. Helper201 (talk) 20:02, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Ah I see.

I'm happy to know people still act in good faith these days, so thank you.

I was born knowing Engish, and learned Hebrew later on, so if you need any translation help, which will give you the nuanced and minor details, I'd be happy to help.

And on a seperate note, does it make sense to list the National Unity ideology as anything seperate from B&W, given it has been reduced to B&W + 2 independents.

It's quite literally a coalition with only one partner now. Mr manor11 (talk) 20:17, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. In regards to National Unity I'm not sure. Maybe it would be worth considering merging or partial removal, although I'm personally unsure at the moment. Its a recent development so it may take time for things to develop further and just be best waiting. Again, I'm personally not sure. Helper201 (talk) 20:22, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

II understand, and it seems we don't quite see eye-to-eye on their alignment, so I suggest we can work it out here, instead of edit wars, if that's OK with you.

In Short, Mountain news is referring to the center-right nature of the security policy (As Gantz is a self-described leftist on Social issues, and centrist on economics, while rightist on secuity, by his own description.)

Center-right, while somewhat accurate, feels misleading, as it only refers to one aspect of his policy, which is why I'd suggest "Center-left to Center right" to cover everything. Mr manor11 (talk) 21:35, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Discussions should take place on the relevant talk pages so others can place their input if they so wish. Also, consensus should be reached before disputed changes are made, not just implemented or readded if I am not there in time to give a reply. Helper201 (talk) 21:39, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough, but this is a quickly-moving development, so the naturally slow pace of this, combined with the fact that this is a very low-traffic pag means that consensus will likely never be acheived, simply as there aren't enough people to do it.

There are roughly an equal number of sources describing them as center or center-left, with center-right actually being a much smaller amount that expected, and usually coming from foreign news.

Forcing it into the category of just "Center-right" is not only misleading and outright incorrect, but has no consensus either, as many reputable sources use "Center" or "Center-left" Mr manor11 (talk) 21:41, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

My edits, Can we have a talk? Ok?

I am not angry, just a bit disappointed. There is some hypocricsy on the edit on some social democratic party like French Socialist Party, and Spanish Socialist Workers' Party. Yes, we need to have some cites to show where we got it from, but there is none on French Socialist Party on ideology of social democracy. Socialist Party of Portugal doesn't have sources on social democracy on ideology in template, along with New Left on Poland template and Social Democratic Party of Lithuania. I have been using from factions of French Socialist Party like democratic socialism and progressivism.

Can you at least put back my edits? Again, I am not mad, just a bit upset and disappointed. I am not one of those who raged over their edits being undone. I am not good at citing when it come to source, but template use that and I only uses visually. So, can you changes it back to my edits, but with cites. That would be nice. Thank you. :) 75.113.159.27 (talk) 22:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

75.113.159.27 social democracy is cited for these parties in the lead/opening of their respective pages. If you want to add claims, please cite them when you add the respective claim. I won't restore edits without citations. I may look for sources for your claims but I'm busy with other stuff so you're probably better looking for sources for your claims yourself. Helper201 (talk) 18:37, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I will found sources. It is that the template is NOT a visual source. I am not good at citing in source editing instead of Visual. Again, I am not going to be like "WHY DID YOU UNEDIT MINE?! YOU ARE GOING TO PAY!!!!", I am just a bit disappointed and confused. I now understand, my apologies if m accusation of hypocrisy is out of nowhere. You are right, it is cited in the beginning. I was using democratic socialism and progressivism from faction of French Socialist Party.

Socialist Party (France) - Wikipedia in the factions.

Lydia Edwards who is Massachusetts State Senate, I found her source of her birthday. Now I understand, :) 75.113.159.27 (talk) 22:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC)