This is an archive of past discussions with User:Helper201. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
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 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)
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)
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.
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!
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)
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 edits17:31, 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)
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.
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.
Hello. In a recent edit to the page Civic Platform, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.
For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, India, or Pakistan, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the first author of the article used.
In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. Max19582 (talk) 13:11, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Hey, thanks a lot for your edit! The word "center" is the valid spelling of the word in American English. This variety of English has been used in the first contribution to the article,[1] and, per MOS:RETAIN, is the one to be used to maintain consistency within the article.
This spelling is consistent with the article's main body, which is something I have recently unified, as spellings in the article used to be inconsistent.
Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written consistently in one English variety, and "centre" is not a valid spelling in American English (MOS:ARTCON).
Before April 6, the spelling in the article was inconsistent (used both British and American). I made it consistent, using American English per MOS:RETAIN. Max19582 (talk) 17:18, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
I disagree with the assertion that it was inconsistent before then. The centre spelling was very prominently used in the infobox for a long, long time before you changed it with no discussion or consensus. Helper201 (talk) 17:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
It was inconsistent per MOS:ARTCON, which states that one particular variety of English should be followed consistently within the article. I don't think prolonged usage of a word in an infobox is enough of a reason to make an exception for it and spell it against the variety's spelling conventions. Max19582 (talk) 17:28, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
Yes and I disagree that one English variety was not consistently used before you changed it. You should get a consensus on the article's talk page and not edit war. This discussion is not for here. Helper201 (talk) 17:32, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
Owen Jones article
Could you please refrain from edit warring, may I suggest we try and find a compromise? Is Starmers comments so contentions that reference to it needs removing? Maybe there is a way of clarifying that Nick Ferrari actually was the one who said Israel has the right to cut off power and water in a loaded question as he interjected in the midst of Starmer making a response to the previous question during the LBC interview, the video footage does show that.
Pennine rambler I was not seeking to edit war. I disagree with your push to include "appeared to". It very clearly states in the LBC source "Israel 'has the right' to withhold power and water from Gaza, says Sir Keir Starmer".[2] Starmer answers the direct question about cutting off power and water very clearly, nor does Ferrari interject, this comes after he answered the prior question. This just comes across as whitewashing. The LBC source directly contradicts the Sky source and its very apparent how clear and direct the answer to the question is. Helper201 (talk) 04:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
I quoted the sources, you are correct they differ, it was Ferrari's loaded question, please re watch the actual interview. We have a compromise which we both agree to, that is to exclude it as contentious, it is the right choice and is better for the article, "among other issues" as you added is a good way of phrasing. Pennine rambler (talk) 04:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
I have re-watched the video, loaded question or not its answered directly and clearly. I'm glad the compromise of eliminating what we both have found contentious is helpful. Helper201 (talk) 04:36, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello, Helper201. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:List of television shows considered the best, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Not going to get in an edit war with you (though you've reverted twice in 24 hours), but date style notes the following "Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the date format most commonly used in that nation. For the United States this is (for example) July 4, 1976; for most other English-speaking countries it is 4 July 1976."
Shafik is far more well known for her tenure at Columbia than anything else, which is why we should used the American style. Also the style of the article is much more heavily using American style than British style. Again, take to the talk page to discuss. Jjazz76 (talk) 20:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Jjazz76 I actually meant to link MOS:RETAIN. We keep to what has been established on this page. The dmy format was established on this page well before she had anything to do with Columbia. Also, if you want to make a change to the long-established status-quo of the page and you are receiving push-back, the onus is on you to take the matter to the talk page. Helper201 (talk) 17:44, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Right now the dates are in to completely different formats on the page. So we need to sort that out. Changing one date doesn't quite get us there. And yes, I did open the conversation on the talk page. Please feel free to contribute to the discussion. Jjazz76 (talk) 17:49, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Meters, apologies, this was not my intent. I accidently searched the page rather than the editing page when looking for what was linked in the article, so I accidently added some that were indeed in the article. Helper201 (talk) 22:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
I have seen your question Central Bylines appears to be part of byline times who have an article on Wikipedia. Have you seen it? It looks reliable enough ,but I have never seen it before. I'd say use until told otherwise. Spinney Hill (talk) 21:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Good evening, as to the recent ELAM issue, I have added further on in the article that it has been acused of being a fascist party, it cannot however be in the infobox page for the party as it is (By the party at least), denied and it's ties with GD in Greece have been cut, anything from there on is an opinion and can get wikipedia into legal trouble as previously stated. ShovelandSpade (talk) 18:25, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
You cannot legally commit defamation or libel against a political party, only against people. We go by what sources state and we have multiple sources stating what you are trying to remove. If your removal of cited information is contested you should seek a consensus on the talk page, not edit war. Helper201 (talk) 11:44, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Again, yes you can be taken to court for libel and again you dont have the right to dictate what party policy is no matter how referenced you think something is. Ive tried meeting you half way and added it further on in the article which you have since tried reverting so Im simply going to add that its disputed and clearly you have a personal agenda in this as the sourced material was never removed simply added further on in the article which again you werent happy with. ShovelandSpade (talk) 18:56, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
I've also added a neutrality template for obvious reasons but reasons I've also stated in the talk page until this issue can be resolved. ShovelandSpade (talk) 19:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Organisations can sue for libel too, not continuing this with you as youre clearly getting agressive, by all means try helping me fix the issues on the main page other than that were done here. ShovelandSpade (talk) 17:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Discussion of MOS:OVERLINK in Party of the European Left
Hi,
I saw your removal of the link on the party colour and I was wondering whether you could expand a bit on that. The link is present for all European political parties, so there is an element of consistency, and (unlike the way it was in some instances, which were changed), the link does not merely refer to the colour but to the political colouring, so there is an information associated with it. Given the lack of knowledge of citizens for European political parties, I would argue that this is not out of place.
Hi, Julius Schwarz. I think part of the issue is you are linking the colour itself rather than linking something like the term, "political colour". The word for the colour itself should link to the page about that colour, i.e. the colour yellow should link to yellow. And in cases such as this that would fall under MOS:OVERLINK. Its placing a link in the wrong place. Also, it’s important to remember WP:OTHERSTUFF in regards to other articles not justifying repetition across multiple articles if the subject is an error in the first place. Helper201 (talk) 16:01, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
When several changes are made together, kindly do not reverse the entirety of the changes, but discuss/edit the errors you find. Admittedly, the "center-right" as "position" was a failed copy/paste and is my mistake. The rest, including the headquarters (which can be found directly on the website), the colour box, etc., are valid. I am re-integrating those changes and am happy to discuss their merit. Julius Schwarz (talk) 18:08, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Julius Schwarz, okay, my apologies for reverting the whole thing. I'm not sure if I saw something else as well as the uncited centre-right but I normally do just correct what was in error. Helper201 (talk) 18:13, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Actually, maybe you have an answer to this: it is wrong to add to the infobox fields that are relevant but empty? For instance, there is no "position" yet and I don't feel like the best person to add one. However, I feel it could be useful to add the field in the infobox so that someone else editing the page might be incentivised to add this information. In any case, it should not display as empty in the infobox. Is there an official recommendation on this? Julius Schwarz (talk) 18:16, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Julius Schwarz, there's not really any rule or guideline for empty fields as far as I'm aware. Some editors go about removing blank fields whereas others add or retain them. The upside is what you've stated, though on the other hand it can encourage editors to add uncited claims, i.e. original research. Personally, I side with the latter, as more experienced editors that are more likely to cite a claim will add the field and the position with a source, whereas less experienced editors are, from my experience, more likely to just see it and insert an uncited claim. Helper201 (talk) 18:24, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Removal of ideologies/positions for European political foundations
I think you pointed out the fact that the sources referred to the European parties, but foundations are ideologically similar to the parties they are affiliated to (since, according to Regulation 1141/2014, foundations are meant to further the objectives of parties), so the information should be relevant, no? Or do you expect to find exactly the same information but linked directly to foundations? This feels convoluted. And certainly, there is value in indicating the ideology of political foundations. Julius Schwarz (talk) 18:20, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Julius Schwarz, per WP:SYNTH the sources should explicitly state what is being claimed. If the source explicitly calls a political foundation a certain ideology, then it would be fine to add it but not when it’s calling the party or anything else this, which breaks the SYNTH guideline. It also, in my view, provides no benefit to have the exact same ideologies as the parties copied across to the foundations. Though the latter is just my own view, whereas the former point is a technical one where a Wikipedia guideline is clearly being broken. Helper201 (talk) 18:28, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Hi Jessicapierce. Yeah, I tried to figure it out myself but couldn't and was hoping someone else could fix it. The opinion piece really needing removing from where it was but I couldn't see how to do this without it creating an error. Hopefully someone will be able to fix this. The sources around it were formatted in an odd way to begin with to enable such a thing to occur by simply removing a citation. Helper201 (talk) 04:04, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
I think I got it! I'm not super familiar with bulleted lists within citations, so that's what was throwing me, but I went in and poked some stuff and it seems to be displaying ok now. Please feel free to adapt/undo anything I changed, if this isn't how you intended for it to display. CHeers, Jessicapierce (talk) 04:13, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Braganza, oh, okay sorry. I will do if I can work out why your ping didn't register so I can do whatever needs to be done differently for it to work. I'm not currently sure what you may have done wrong, so I'm not sure why your ping didn't work. If I did the same as what you did it probably wouldn't work. Helper201 (talk) 23:48, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
i think its because i added the pings as nowiki and when i removed it, it didnt registered? when you add other people later they aren't pinged either i heard Braganza (talk) 05:10, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
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.
Wiki N Islam 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)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia: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.
Sources: [3], [4] & 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.
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.
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.
Your recent editing history at Avril Lavigne 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. Thedarkknightli (talk) 14:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
You have recently edited a page related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief 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.
Hey there. I just wanted to let you know that WP:SHORTDESC#Inclusion of dates explicitly states the format for current officeholders should be Currently in office: [Office description] since startyear. I hope this settles our little dispute. Cheers! estar8806 (talk) ★21:10, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
If you look at my edit closely, you'll see that I didn't remove any cited content at all. See the before and after.
I added: "The party's youth wing is the Republican Socialist Youth Movement (RSYM)", and added the important fact that they "oppose the Good Friday Agreement and the European Union".
I was the one who originally added Marxism-Leninism. I didn't remove it from the lead, I only moved it down a bit.
The only thing I did remove was that it "claims the legacy of the Irish Socialist Republican Party of 1896–1904". The reason is because there's no link between the parties at all, it's only a claim made in one IRSP document, so I don't think it's notable enough for the lead. – Asarlaí(talk)09:44, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Please do not remove maintenance tags, in this case NPOV, when there is a discussion on the talk page
Nashhinton it’s just because the matter has received a lot of back and forth editing and edit waring, hence the extensive talk page discussion on the matter. When matters are contested such as this it’s best to wait until a consensus is formed on the matter. The please for this is on the article's talk page. All the best. Helper201 (talk) 18:21, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
EPP political alignment
Hi @Helper201, point taken for SYNTH for the EPP's political alignment. However, I still think this is notably misleading because many of the EPP's own parties are clearly right-wing and the description of the EPP as "centre-right" is a mix of historical continuation and distinction with the ECR, which is actually more "hard right" then just right-wing. Now, given the weight of national parties within European parties, how about a mention of factions, under "center-right", indicating that they range from centre-right to right-wing? Julius Schwarz (talk) 17:07, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
How do you mean? Here, factions are the national member parties. Many of these parties are already listed as right-wing. If we stick to the fact that the EPP is "centre-right" (which I personally dispute, but that's another matter), but indicate that its factions range from centre-right to right-wing, then the fact that the member parties themselves are already noted to be right-wing should suffice, no? I understand the point of SYNTH, but this is a case where we know what the factions are and what their political alignment is. Julius Schwarz (talk) 08:00, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
Julius Schwarz, basically we need a source that says the EPP is right-wing and/or that it has right-wing factions. To use the sources listed on each of the individual parties’ pages to imply a position of the EPP would fall under SYNTH. Helper201 (talk) 16:27, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
Julius Schwarz, I'd suggest reading what is stated here - WP:SYNTH. We'd be implying a conclusion of how the EPP group is based off of what's cited for its individual members, which falls under synth. I'm not sure if I can expand anymore beyond what I've already said. Helper201 (talk) 19:07, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
I have read that and I still disagree with your conclusion. You assume that indicating the orientation of factions is implying a conclusion on the party itself. I (along with many others, since this system is found on many pages) think the description of factions provides a fuller picture of the orientation of the party: the EPP is center-right, but it contains factions that go from centre-right to right-wing. And that last part is not SYNTH because it's not an assumption on the party itself. The narrow implementation of this policy, in this case, is detrimental to the quality of the article. Julius Schwarz (talk) 20:08, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
Hi @Helper201, just wanted to ask about your revert of my edit. My reason for removing "centre-right" from the footnote was because I placed "centre-right" in the main position spot. Just wanted to check: did your revert reasoning take that into account? If so, would you support removing "centre-right" from the footnote if the main position was changed to "centre to centre-right", as consensus seems to support on the article's talk page? If not: would you allow me to restore my revision without reverting it again (so as not to start an edit war)? Thanks in advance. – GlowstoneUnknown(Talk)11:59, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
Hi @Helper201,
Just saw you removed Sovereigntism from the ideology of the ESN. My reason for including it was the following line from their political programme: "The ESN party protects the traditional family as the core of a Europe of free peoples founded on identity and sovereignty." Does that not suffice as a source for this ideology? Julius Schwarz (talk) 14:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
Hi Julius Schwarz. That definition seems to contrast with the one given on the Wikipedia page and the quote possibly falls foul of WP:SYNTH, in so far as not specifically stating that it has a sovereigntist ideology. It's also a first-party source, which aren't exactly great for supporting claims (third-party sources are far superior). Helper201 (talk) 14:56, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. How is it different from the one given on the page though? As far as I can see this is just the English translation and the German version (from the PDF) is provided below, no? I get your point about sources, but it seems like every discussion focuses instead on the political group and not on the party. And, even though they have the same membership, someone will always flag this as the wrong type of source. Short of that, this page might be our (current) best way to support claims for ideology. Do you have anything more reliable? Julius Schwarz (talk) 15:05, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
Julius Schwarz, I'm not sure I understand some of your questions within the current context. Basically, we should just keep to what can be explicitly supported by reliable third-party sources. It’s better to have less information than information that is of poor source quality or ambiguous or debatable in nature. Helper201 (talk) 15:10, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
But given the membership of the party, the ideology of the group (with the same members), and the ideology indicated by the party itself, you really think this is not properly supported? To me, the website, although first-party, is sufficient - it is just well supported by the rest. Julius Schwarz (talk) 15:14, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
Julius Schwarz, it depends what is meant by them by the term "sovereigntist" and whether it aligns with the standard definitions of the term. There are parties for example like the Social Democratic Party (Portugal), that while having social democratic in its name, do not actually advocate for the ideology of social democracy. Sovereigntism is also not something which is cited as an ideology of the parties that make the group. It’s also unclear how many of them really want to enact sovereigntism in so far as aspects such as actually leaving the EU (many Eurosceptic parties in recent years have retracted explicitly stating that they want to leave the EU). Of course, such matters are debatable and it’s not something for which Wikipedia users should ultimately making judgement calls about. Instead, we should only defer to what reliably third-party sources explicitly state. Helper201 (talk) 15:24, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
I didn't really mean that they had "sovereign" in their name, as much as the idea is clearly spelled out in their political programme. And, in my view at least, sovereignty need not mean "leaving the EU", it can just be a focus on the national sovereignty of the member states and the refusal to endow the EU with further competence (and, very often, reduce them). But I guess that's the point: that's my view and it shouldn't be up to us, so let's indeed leave this to third-party sources. Julius Schwarz (talk) 20:08, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
Remove Socialism and Anti-capitalism
Remove Socialism and Anti-capitalism in CPI(M). Communism and Marxism-Leninism itself represents socialism and anti-capitalism. No need to mention it seperately. Add Left-wing to far-left there. It's more radical left of Communist Party of India which is cited as left-wing to far-left. Commie Eagle (talk) 16:08, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Japanese Communist Party. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
Hi @Helper201, as you probably saw, I have been working on updating/streamlining descriptions and ledes of European political parties and alliances. With regards to the European Federalist Party and Volt Europa, ElTres and I disagreed: I made changes, he reverted them, and I engaged with him on his talk page to discuss the matter, but that did not lead to anything productive. I therefore posted on the relevant talk pages (here and here) to get some additional input. I was wondering whether you had views on the question (note that, in my view, the two entities are in notably situations). Julius Schwarz (talk) 06:38, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Julius Schwarz apologies but I'm a bit busy to read through both links and come to a conclusion on the matter at the moment. I may have the time next time I come online to do so. If I read it and think I have any worthwhile input I'll add my thoughts but it may be the case I don't, so subsequently won’t involve myself. All the best in finding an amicable conclusion. Helper201 (talk) 06:50, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick reply, and sure thing, of course. People easily get caught up in discussions and debates, but it is admittedly no urgent matter. Just happy to hear your thoughts when you have a moment. Julius Schwarz (talk) 06:55, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Please stop removing content from pages
I've asked you three times now to go to my talk page to discuss our dispute, and you haven't. instead you took my "no response" (when I've been asking you many times to go to my talk page) as justification to arbitrarily remove content you personally don't want on the infobox, including aditions made by other editors. Please stop your disruptive editing. ⛿WeaponizingArchitecture | yell at me04:41, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
Its 28+1, the one coming from the above link, this depends on what locak government goes down to, County? District? Town? Parish? Spookybunny8 (talk) 02:01, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
also Reform uk has changed their slogan to Family, Community, Country. this was confirmed at the reform uk party conference on the 20th September 2024 if you watch the video you will see the slogan in the back ground of all speakers at the conference. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f37kbgiw-M0
they also have 90 thousand paid members now it was confirmed by the official social media page of the party this is from a real source.
JY-LIVE Just cite your claims using a reliable third party source. You didn't, that's why it was reverted. You changed information to what the sources provided on Reform UK's Wikipedia page did not say. Helper201 (talk) 02:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
Bulgarian 2024 Elections Campaign Slogans
Hello, I saw you reverted an edit which I had made to the Bulgarian 2024 Election Campaign citing the WP:ELNO policy (which was valid). However, I had sine changed the table to exclude all external links, except to the official campaign websites of the parties. Instead, what had been done is adding the slogans of the parties without the websites, and with a reference from the parties leadership/social media which generally does NOT violate wikipedia policy, especially as pertains to political campaigns. It seems you have decided to once again remove all the slogans which had been added. In fact, it seems you even removed parts which had the official campaign websites of the parties added. Now, it can be argued that these party websites are a violation of WP:ELNO in which case the whole section should be reworked, however your arbitrary editting (which seems to have no concern for the actual content of the article or the work that editors have put in to researching the subject) is undermining any progress that can be made. Bulpoliticsedit (talk) 12:11, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
Specifically, "As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body." This is why you are getting reverted by multiple editors. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:45, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
I've re-removed the lines mentioning their town or parish level councillors from the article's lead. While it made sense and was notable enough for inclusion in the lead section (and by notable, I'm not referring to the GNG but rather the contents of the article as a whole) when that was their highest level of representation, the fact they now have a councillor elected to a principal authority effectively renders what made the mention of their town/parish councillors as justifiable to mention in the lead moot.
It's suitable for inclusion within the article, but putting parish and town council seats in the lead when they have higher levels of representation is highly unusual, as the lead is meant to summarise the most important points. Now they have any amount of principal authority representation, the parish/town level is now not the most important level to summarise, similar to how we don't detail the number of councillors in the lead for parties with MPs. Rambling Rambler (talk) 00:07, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
