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)

English varieties

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, 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.

Nonetheless thank you for your contributions! Max19582 (talk) 13:18, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

The long establish spelling of this word on that page before you changed it on 6 April was centre. Helper201 (talk) 15:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

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.

Sky article has Starmer himself clarify, it is an important citation. https://news.sky.com/story/sir-keir-starmer-seeks-to-clarify-gaza-remarks-following-backlash-from-labour-councillors-12988235

--Pennine rambler (talk) 01:35, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

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". 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)

Concern regarding Draft:List of television shows considered the best

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.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 16:06, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Dating Style on Minouche Shafik

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)

See also links

Please don't add see also links that are already linked in the body of the article (as you did in Bicycle). Meters (talk) 22:00, 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)

No biggie. As long as you're aware. Meters (talk) 23:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Liberal democrats

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)

I don't think we have enough to confirm its reliability. Helper201 (talk) 17:32, 19 May 2024 (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, 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.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:28, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Stop posting fake warnings on my talk page

Stop posting fake warnings on my talk page. Laddmeister (talk) 15:02, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

There is nothing "fake" about it. You are edit warring. Helper201 (talk) 15:03, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

ELAM

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)

Try reading the actual definition of the word libel. You are also breaking "no personal attacks" with your false accusation and assumption. Helper201 (talk) 15:03, 31 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.

Best,

Julius Schwarz (talk) 15:53, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

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)

Ok, fair enough, I guess that makes sense. Julius Schwarz (talk) 19:04, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Reversal of edits on European Pirate Party

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)

So you'd recommend not adding empty fields, do I get that right? Julius Schwarz (talk) 18:26, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Julius Schwarz, that would be my personal view, yes. Helper201 (talk) 18:29, 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)

Dang it. But point taken, thanks. Julius Schwarz (talk) 20:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

ref error

Hi there, your recent edits of Identity and Democracy Party seem to have added a ref error that I absolutely cannot figure out how to fix... mind taking a look? Thanks! Jessicapierce (talk) 03:59, 6 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)

Jessicapierce Brilliant! Thanks for the help! Helper201 (talk) 04:17, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Ping

If the ping still does not come, could you ping these? Braganza (talk) 08:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

"These"? I'm not sure what you mean. Helper201 (talk) 23:17, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

those people i tried to ping Braganza (talk) 14:53, 9 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.

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

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)