Jump to content

User talk:Helper201/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Audio version of Apollo 11 created

Hi, I have uploaded an audio version of the Apollo 11 article, and just wanted to let you know, since you requested such a recording. I am just waiting for someone to approve my suggested edit to add it to the article. ExcarnateSojourner (talk) 04:09, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi, ExcarnateSojourner, brilliant! Thank you for doing this. Best of luck in getting it approved. Helper201 (talk) 19:15, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Zoe Ness , could a more recent picture be added to her profile picture please

Could a more recent picture be added to her profile picture a Rangers or Scotland one . Story Morning Glory (talk) 09:38, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Story Morning Glory, the current photo was taken from a file uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, seen here - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Zoe_Ness_(48568436637).jpg I did not take this photo myself and as far as I can see there isn't a more recent one available of her on Wikimedia Commons, but if I see a more recent one of good quality, I will look to update it. Helper201 (talk) 19:15, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:45, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

LREM

Please see my comments on the LREM talk page, and apologies if my language was slightly harsh previously. TheFrench page for LREM reached a consensus that the positioning of the party in the infobox should be "centre-left to centre-right". Here is a link to our fellow editors' discussion, which reached a consensus on this designation in late 2019. Since this is the consensus prior to us even having this debate, I've changed the lede and the infobox designation accordingly while all interested editors continue to discuss, and also posted this to the LREM talk page. EndlessCoffee54 (talk) 21:22, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

"better source than a YouTube video"

Did you watch the video? It is Sally Phillips in her own words describing her own life. Daundelin❁ 18:30, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Daundelin apologies, I didn't. I just saw the source was from YouTube and added that per WP:YOUTUBE, WP:BLP and WP:LIBEL. I think even if properly sourced it’s debatable whether it should be included due to the guideline of presumption in favour of privacy when it comes to biographies of living persons. It’s also debatable whether it is really noteworthy enough for inclusion. It is also stated that "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous or harmful", so I was trying to be on the safe side of that too. Helper201 (talk) 18:44, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
It would likely be a good idea moving forward to check references before removing them. BLP? It is the unedited words of the subject herself, which also removes libel concerns. It was something she said herself in a professionally-produced interview with a colleague, so no, presumption or privacy or suggestions that this is harmful also don't apply. And, since again this is her talking about her own life, it isn't 'contentious' either, nor is it--for the reasons I have repeatedly noted--un- or poorly-sourced. It's direct from the horse's mouth.
TLDR: check references before deleting them. Daundelin❁ 18:49, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Daundelin I do check sources before removing them. I did not remove this source, that was a different editor, I simply tagged the claim as needing a better source. If you want to remove the tag then fine. I'm not arguing against you, I'm simply explaining why I did what I did. I usually do view sources; I just simply tagged the claim on this occasion when I saw it was a YouTube source but should've viewed it first. Helper201 (talk) 18:55, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Okay, let me rephrase then: check sources before decreeing that they are unreliable. We're clear? Good. Daundelin❁ 19:08, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Norway and euroscepticism

To explain further why Norway's Red Party is not "hard eurosceptic": Norway is completely exterior to the European Union. "Hard eurosceptic" refers to politics in a country within the EU that favor that country's withdrawal from it or the dissolution of it. A Norwegian party's opposition to joining the EU in Norway is no more "hard eurosceptic" than would be opposition to Russia joining the EU from United Russia. RiverCityRelay (talk) 05:25, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

tags

I notice that you are helping with musicians' bios, and thank you for that. I am taking some on my to-do-list that need refs. Two wishes: 1) please try to keep tags as concise as possible, not "multiple" for needs refs and inline, - just the stronger. (Admitting: I hate these tags, and will try to get rid of them, as they discredit the information for our readers. How about a notice on the talk where writers will watch?) 2) West Germany and East Germany (and Nazi Germany and Weimar Republic ...) are all sloppy common names for complex political entities. I try to avoid them by piping, the same way I will pipe Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, a name that the person in question never used. It's a matter of respect. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:11, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Gerda Arendt, no problem. For instances where I put both I do so because a couple of sources may be listed that are not used as footnotes but either a. not likely enough to cover the amount of uncited information given or b. it could still generally do with more sources as well as footnotes, though I do generally try to keep to one. Tags on the main page are usually the best way to get the most people's attention, especially from readers that aren't signed up Wikipedia editors. At lot of big edits can come from IP's making one off edits that don't edit on a regular basis.
In terms of nation states, this is an issue I have come across before and one I feel quite strongly about. We should use the country that existed at the time of the person's birth and death in the infobox, per Template:Infobox person. Under the Parameters section of that page it explicitly states to "Use the name of the birthplace at the time of birth". For West and East Germany, we should use West Germany/Federal Republic of Germany/Bonn Republic or East Germany/German Democratic Republic, respectively. Most non-Wikipedia editors rarely click on or view blue internal Wikipedia internal links. So just stating Germany can be misrepresentative and can confuse people, as the two countries that today make up Germany were not the same before 1990 as they are today. Therefore it is much more beneficial and less confusing to readers if we clearly and explicitly state the country that existed at the time of their birth and death. Helper201 (talk) 22:49, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
You write "exist", and for me "West Germany" didn't exist (nor the others). (I am German, and my passport didn't say "West Germany" or an equivalent.) For someone making music, West or East or Nazi don't even seem relevant. For politicians, that may be different. What do you think of the Mozart name? - The Salzburg Festival always writes W. A. Mozart, not the common name that didn't "exist", - he wrote Wolfgang Amadé or Wolfgangus Amadeus but never the composition you will hear most on radio, and read as our article title. Nutshell: when an article title is wrong or problematic, it may be the lesser misrepresentation to not show it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:15, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Internationally West and East Germany were regarded as separate, not one country. Wikipedia is written from a global perspective. They both had their own governments and different laws etc. I'm not saying your views are wrong, it’s just internationally the world didn't generally regard there to be one Germany from 1949 – September 1990. I think this should be applied universally and it doesn't matter what the profession of the person is or was. What existed under West and East Germany were different entities to each other and to that which exists today, in some ways this is undeniable. There were two different governments and now one, there are now unified laws, changed borders etc. I don't have any opinion on the Mozart matter. I think conventions on people's name's and countries are their own individual matters and probably have different Wikipedia guidelines that probably shouldn't be conflated. Helper201 (talk) 23:28, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) The names West Germany and East Germany were inventions of the English-speaking world. The countries themselves were named Bundesrepublik Deutschland (BRD) and Deutsche Demokratische Republik (DDR) respectively by their governments - these translate to Federal Republic of Germany and German Democratic Republic respectively. At reunification, the former DDR was dissolved and the BRD was expanded - the present country known in English as Germany is also formally Bundesrepublik Deutschland, since it is the same country simply with five additional Länder on top of the original ten plus the reunified Berlin. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:25, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi Redrose64, respectively, what is your point here? You explicitly said "countries themselves", i.e. more than one. Helper201 (talk) 02:16, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Nationality/citizenship problems in regard to women

Hope you don't mind, Helper, a new subsection here but I thought both you and Gerda Arendt might be interested in this initiative SusunW has come up with for development in 2021. You might be interested in contributing to our brainstorming on User talk:SusunW/Women's nationality. I've always thought it was a particularly important topic to address on Wikipedia as there seems to be very little appreciation of the issue, especially in regard to the need to establish "Country of citizenship" on Wikidata or categories related to nationality in women's biographies. It seems to me the whole question of Germans and Germany deserves special attention in this connection. And while I'm here, thanks Gerda for all wonderful contributions to Christmas on DYK.--Ipigott (talk) 15:34, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Ipigott, I don't mind at all. Thanks for letting me know. I'll have a look into it. Helper201 (talk) 13:28, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Germany

What I tried to say in an edit summary: Bremen was in Germany in 1954. If you think it has to be said that it was in the west of Germany - which I don't think is at all relevant for a music teacher - please don't use West Germany which is a very sloppy name, but pipe it. To say "West Germany now Germany" is plain wrong, sounding as if it wasn't in Germany before now. When you speak about Bremen in medieval times you wouldn't add "now Germany", or would you? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:07, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt, this is common consensus for how this is done. West Germany is the common English name for the Federal Republic of Germany which existed from 1949 to 1990 as its own distinct country. While East Germany is the common English name for the German Democratic Republic, which also existed for the same years and was also its separate, distinct country. It is standard formatting to "Use the name of the birthplace at the time of birth" in the infobox, as seen on Template:Infobox person. These countries are separate from the west and east of Germany as it stands today as one united country, in which case you would not include west and east because it’s one united country. This distinction is used when the person in question was born or died between 1949 to 1990 because these were two separate countries both with Germany in their name during those times, of which there is no universal consensus which one was the one true "Germany". Just saying Germany could confuse people as there was and is no consensus that only one was Germany and the other wasn't, or that they were one country from 1949 to 1990, because they weren't. Helper201 (talk) 21:16, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
I disagree. (I am German, and I have been a member of project Germany for more than a decade.) There is no consensus. Some write Germany (no link, correct for the current country), others write West Germany and East Germany with links unpiped, some write the same piped. Nobody - up to you now - wrote "now Germany" as if it wasn't Germany before. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:33, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Gerda Arendt well you can find this consistently on many pages of which it is rarely rejected. If you just write Germany for people that were born between 1949 and 1990 it’s not clear whether you are speaking of West or East Germany. Saying "now Germany" isn't supposed to be indicating there wasn't a Germany before, simply that Germany was split previously and one of the countries was referred to in the English-speaking world as West Germany, the other as East Germany. Now as the united country it is simply referred to as Germany in the English-speaking world. You could link Germany in "now Germany" to clarify this in brackets under West or East Germany but I don't see any other way that you can stop the issues I've raised while also attending to what you are raising as an issue unless you have any suggestions. I see no perfect solution but this seems much better than just saying "Germany" for either or both West and/or East Germany, which is simply confusing in the English-speaking world. Saying now Germany clarifies that neither West nor East Germany exist anymore but it is one united country just called Germany. Perhaps as another solution you could place under West or East Germany (Germany united in 1990) instead of now Germany. Helper201 (talk) 22:45, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
I disagree. I haven't seen "now Germany", and I don't want to see it. Redrose64 explained in 2020 - still on this talk - why not. Past midnight here, so no more today, sorry. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:41, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Well, with all due respect we come to a consensus, it’s not just about what you want. I have come up with alternative proposals, so please consider them for an alternate way forward. I have explained the issues I see as best I can and I think we are at an impasse unless you want to consider my alternative proposals or want to come up with your own that we can agree on that get around these issues. Criticism of this way of doing things does not appear to be common among other editors. Take it to a wider pool of editors if you want and quote this discussion we’ve had. Helper201 (talk) 00:00, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
I am sorry to see that you take as criticism what I meant just as a description of what I observe. Nikkimaria uses a plain Germany without link, even when the period from 1945/1949 to 1990 is meant, which makes a lot of sense to me: People who really don't know where a town such as Bremen (or Leipzig) was in geography and politics at a certain time (here a person's birthdate), can easily find it in that town's article. Germany is a current country which should not be linked per WP:OVERLINK, and West Germany was politically the same country, just smaller. - We talk about a person's biography, and all these extras (a link to a common name which was never official or undisputed, + "now" something else that is easily deduced) seems undue weight, to me at least. Would you wish to include in Bach's bio that Leipzig where he died is "now Germany"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:57, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I'm not sure I understand your point or have much else to say that I haven't already. I know linking Germany is typically overlinking, I was just suggesting it as a compromise to what you see as an issue to try and help resolve it. I'm also not sure of the article you are speaking of. Helper201 (talk) 22:14, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
You really do justice to your username. Thanks for your contribution to Fadew and all the other little but efficient edits you make to other articles. Tame (talk) 17:02, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Tamingimpala awww, thank you! In my years and many thousands of edits I've never received a barnstar or any awards, so I really appreciate you took the time to give this to me here. I'll try and continue to help out as best I can. You've been doing great work on the Fadew page, so thanks to you too! Thanks again for your appreciation and all the best. Helper201 (talk) 17:08, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Can I know why you don't keep a userpage? At first I thought you're a newbie. Tame (talk) 17:11, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Tamingimpala I guess I've never seen much of a reason to create one for myself personally. I prefer to generally just go about my editing without drawing much attention to myself and never thought anyone would really care to look at my user page if I created one or that I'd have much I'd want to say on it. Helper201 (talk) 17:15, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
@Helper201, I'm someone who visits userpages a lot. By visiting mine, you'd notice I do quite like to decorate it. You know, to me, the best feeling about wiki editing is when ur edit gets noticed and you feel appreciated. Everyone, even with 1 good faith edit, should feel proud. We're doing something bigger than our personal selves, I mean i'm sure u know, aside from the addiction (i'm pretty much wikiholic), the feeling that you get knowing u're efforts are making people's life easier, its just can't be expressed into words. Thanks Jimmy for starting the project, otw the internet wouldn't have been the same. Have a great rest of your evening/morning/afternoon. Tame (talk) 17:21, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Tame I like your userpage, especially the pictures you have displayed. I like Slowdive and have a physical copy of their Souvlaki album that I bought after hearing their music while walking around a big old antique shop about 5 years ago. I agree, it’s a nice feeling to be appreciated and every good faith edit helps build a great platform and should be appreciated. I love the fact its an open platform where anyone can come and edit and do as much or as little as they want. Oh yes, I think I'd fall into the same boat regarding being a wikiholic. That feeling when you look at the time and it’s flown by editing, or you'll just do one more edit, or you're tired but see that one little thing you think you could fix so drag yourself online to fix it etc. Music can be nice to have on in the background for a relaxing session but also makes the time go by even faster. Thank you for your wishes and the same to you. Helper201 (talk) 17:34, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
@Helper201, ur fav slowdive tracks? Tame (talk) 22:10, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Tame, its been a few years since I last listened to them to be honest. I've just stuck on Souvlaki after you just mentioned it. Helper201 (talk) 22:19, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
@Helper201, IMO their best songs are the unreleased/demos. Anyway, are you familiar with GY!BE? or ASMZ? If not, u should really check em. For starters, try these when u have time: Mountains Made of Steam, Sleep. [Its my habit to recommend my fav artists to anyone I meet😁]. Be well. Tame (talk) 22:25, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
@Tame, no I've never heard of either. I guess I'm generally into heavier stuff than bands like Slowdive, usually variants of rock and metal. Thanks for the recommendations, I'll give them a listen. I'll have a think of what I like that may be in a similar vein and recommend them to you. All the best. Helper201 (talk) 22:36, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
@Tame My suggestions of a similar'ish style:
Happy listening and I'd be interested to see what you think. Helper201 (talk) 23:13, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
@Helper201, I already know and listened to Mr Kitty (the jennifer colleny video was in my recommended page every other day 2 years ago), and a huge fan of Nirvana. I will let you know about the others after listening. Thanks for the suggestions tho. Tame (talk) 08:15, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
@Helper201, Man! Listened to all of them. Dilly Dally really shook me up! Got a new sound system, and no better song to try it out. Can u recommend some loud stuff? I'm not really into loud grunge, more of a post rock guy. But would like to explore it. Thanks in advance. Tame (talk) 18:39, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
@Tame, It’s strange how the YT algorithm seemed to pump that Mr Kitty about quite a bit. Nirvana have always been one of my favourite bands. Cool you listened to all of them, cheers! I listened to the songs you linked but they are a bit too slow and long for my tastes. But don't take that personally. I'm very picky with what music clicks with me. A lot of the time I don't like things right away but will go back and listen to them again later and they'll grow on me more over time. I'll probably try some GY!BE? and ASMZ songs at some point. What do you mean by loud stuff? I'm not sure much of what I'm into fits into the specific genre of post-rock. I like pop-punk and stuff like that as well and a range of rock and metal subgenres. Heck I'll listen to some standard and cheesy pop stuff too. I'm not a music purist. Listen to whatever you like and don't care what people think. Being I'm generally a rock and metal person it surprises people when I say I also like the odd cheesy pop stuff or some rap or emo-rap. I used to be more of that kind of person that would deride mainstream stuff as generally being terrible and for the most part I'm still not into it and don't listen to the vast majority of it but my horizons have broadened with age and I'm more open to giving stuff a go I wouldn't normally listen to and trying to be cool with whatever people are into. Helper201 (talk) 22:01, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Live and let live I guess. Do and listen to what makes you happy. As long as it doesn't hurt others do what you want in life. That's the general attitude I try and take with music and life, I guess. There's enough hate and anger in the world and we don't need to add to it with being horrible to people based on stuff like music or personal taste. Helper201 (talk) 22:09, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
@Tame, if you could please explain what you mean by "loud stuff" I'll try and think of anything I know that might fit what I think you mean, if I know anything that fits the bill. Helper201 (talk) 22:26, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
@Helper201, I mean like Dilly Dally grunge kinda loud. Or even Metal works. You know what, just give me something that will freaking blast my new sound system. Thanks. Tame (talk) 22:30, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
@Helper201, And ASMZ or GYBE they are the same band. Like with some different members. GYBE takes time, listen to F#A# infinity some night in dark room. And ASMZ is of acquired taste, you first have to become GYBE fan. Even many GYBE fans don't like ASMZ. But as a music freak, u shouldn't really miss Lift Your Skinny Fists Like Antennas to Heaven or F♯ A♯ ∞, these are two of the most critically acclaimed albums of all time. Once u really get into GYBE (takes ages), other musician and band starts to feel hollow. Tame (talk) 22:36, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
My introduction to GYBE was through East Hastings. Tame (talk) 22:41, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
@Tame, OK! I gotcha:
@Tame bonus songs:
Helper201 (talk) 23:19, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
The not so hidden track: Addicted To Chaos (Remastered 2004) Helper201 (talk) 23:49, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
@Helper201. Sepultura! Sepultura! Sepultura! Sepultura!. Although I didn't dig the vocals in heavy metals, man, the instrumental, I could literally feel em deep up in my ....cause the couch was vibrating, like for real. And with this bad boy (sony MHC-V83D), you seriously owe some apologies to my neighbors. I'll try the bonus tracks later and let you know. And thank you, big time. Tame (talk) 14:08, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
+the album Tame (talk) 14:13, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Don’t add “United Kingdom and Ireland”

DrKay reverted your edits as many. So please don’t add “United Kingdom and Ireland” in king or queen’s birth and died place in some British monarchs articles. Thanks! Usernogood (talk) 02:10, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

And don’t add “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland” too. Thanks! Usernogood (talk) 02:19, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

And don’t add “Kingdom of Great Britain” too Thanks! Usernogood (talk) 13:41, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

@Usernogood Can you please explain your point further and why you are posting this? I may have added United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland which was a country between 1801–1922. It depends upon the specific page you are referring to. Per Template:Infobox person#Parameters it clearly states we should add "city, administrative region, country" and "Use the name of the birthplace at the time of birth, e.g.: Saigon (prior to 1976) or Ho Chi Minh City (post-1976)." I am following these recommended Wikipedia guidelines. Helper201 (talk) 21:35, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
@Helper201 Because place is same. For example “Buckingham Palace, London, England, Kingdom of Great Britain” is same place you see bold text. That why your edits was reverted. Usernogood (talk) 19:22, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
@Helper201 And Most British monarchs articles is England. Usernogood (talk) 21:55, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

March 2022

Information icon Hello, I'm Volten001. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Legalise Cannabis Australia have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. Volten001 talk 14:50, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Volten001. I've compromised and retained the information while moving it and rewording it slightly to emphasise that the issue isn't one where the party itself it taking a particular position. Helper201 (talk) 14:59, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

French political parties

You might be interested into these RfCs (EELV, French Communist Party, Left Party, LFI). It's the same user who edit warred on English and French wikis back in February. We discussed about their edits here. Cheers, Vacant0 (talk) 11:38, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi Vacant0, thanks for making me aware of this. I have posted a reply and will look into the sources more when I get more time. However, I am not a French speaker or reader, so will be relying on translation tools for the sources. Would you mind posting your thoughts on this - Talk:Good Party#Political position - RfC please? Helper201 (talk) 13:11, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

July 2022

Copyright problem icon Your edit to Incarceration in Norway has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 12:51, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

August 2022

Information icon Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In your recent edit to Lil Peep, you added links to an article which did not add content or meaning, or repeated the same link several times throughout the article. Please see Wikipedia's guideline on links to avoid overlinking. I'm not sure if you missed it or what, but the link you added was already on the article just above the one you added. TylerBurden (talk) 23:14, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

TylerBurden, Yeah, sorry, I missed that it was already linked before this. If I'd noticed that I wouldn't have added it. In which case, thanks for fixing this. Helper201 (talk) 23:16, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Cats

Hiya. Maybe have a quick look at WP:CATDEF. If a subject has a brief involvement with a topic (or if a subject article simply mentions a topic), it doesn't necessarily make that topic one of the "defining characteristics of a subject". To the extent that the subject should be categorised on that basis. Certainly in a top-level category. (If deemed necessary, you could consider creating a category like "Category:Former members of Young Fine Gael". As a categorisation like that would be less of an issue relative to the "defining characteristics of a subject" concept.) Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 16:50, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi Guliolopez. In regards to Iona Institute I don't see what guideline this breaks in regards to what you linked. Okay, so they don't self-define as Catholic, but they are described by multiple sources on the page as such, so their assertion doesn't really make any difference to the guidelines stated as far as I can see. What you linked states, "A central concept used in categorizing articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define". This doesn't say the group has to self-identify this way. Helper201 (talk) 17:37, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Hiya. My concern with the Iona Institute was more so that they are not a "church group". Like the others in that category (Association of Catholic Priests, Apostolic Nunciature to Ireland, Conference of Religious of Ireland). And so it seemed like an inappropriate category. That they expressly disassociate/distance themselves from such a categorisation however has at least some relevance. I do agree with this recategorisation however. (As it associates with the group with "Catholicism" (the ethos/history - which the refs broadly support) rather than associating the group with the "Catholic Church" (the org/institution - with which the subject has no affiliation). Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 20:22, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
On a related point about categories, I see that you've been adding animal rights activists categories to pages about celebrities who are notable for things other than animal rights activism, and who simply participated once or twice in something that was animal rights-related. There is a consensus against categorizing celebrities this way: [1]. Celebrities often do a lot of things in their lives, and not all of them are deemed WP:DEFINING, so we don't add a category for every thing a celebrity has ever been interested in. (A model whose photo appeared in an ad for whiskey, and who said that she liked that brand of whiskey, would probably not belong in a hypothetical category of people who drink whiskey.) In the case of animal rights, some AR organizations engage in using brief appearances by celebrities as a publicity ploy, but it would be WP:POV for Wikipedia to assign WP:UNDUE significance to that. Bill Maher is an example of someone who does belong in such a category, because he has said repeatedly that ongoing advocacy for it is a significant part of his interests. But very few celebrities are like that. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:28, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
Tryptofish, I only added one animal rights category to one celebrity. Looking at the discussion it seems very ambiguous over what people qualify and which don't. I'm also not sure if the consensus comes exactly to what you say it did. I think the animal rights category should be able to be added to pages like this when a person has actively contributed to animal rights and/or been defined as an animal rights advocate or activist by reliable sources. I don't think it should only be limited to people who are known primarily because of this. The singer, Pink, for example, is a celebrity not primarily known because of her animal rights activism, yet it’s clear from what's cited on her Wikipedia page that she meets this characteristic. She is also listed on the page List of animal rights advocates. Here are also multiple sources supporting this:
Now, she's a celebrity not primarily known for this but I think the above clearly qualifies her to have the animal rights category on her page. If so, then where exactly do we draw the line over who is and is not included? I ask this not just to you but as a question in general, as I can't see a consensus on any specificizes or criteria. Helper201 (talk) 00:14, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
As for the number of times, I only reverted one addition by you yesterday, but I've had to revert others in the recent past. As with many things in life, this requires editorial judgment, and there isn't a bright line. I've just said that Bill Maher is an example for whom the category is appropriate, so there is no reason to think that I wouldn't agree that there could be others. (I don't know enough about Pink in this regard, and I don't need to do the research right now. Posing nude in a sensational publicity photo may not be the same as significant activism.) You may perhaps find the discussion difficult to demonstrate a bright line, but there isn't going to be a bright line. But there is a clear consensus. If you don't like the consensus, then you can try to start a discussion to change it. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:35, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
Also, there is a significant difference between being an advocate and being an activist. The list page to which you linked is one of advocates, but the category is activists. And the consensus discussion to which I linked rejected having any advocates category, on the grounds that simply advocating something would not be defining. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:42, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
Tryptofish, well the revert in question is the only celebrity I can recall adding the animal rights category to recently, if ever. What others are you referring to, or were they other categories? Can you please use the undo feature to notify me of these reverts in future or at least make me aware of them here please? I disagree regarding there being a clear consensus, judgement of which is obviously a subjective take/conclusion and not a matter-of-fact. Also, the statements of reliable sources like those given above should always take president over the views/opinions of editors. To not allow the category to be added for Pink would be putting the personal judgement of a small number of editors over what multiple reliable sources explicitly state. Helper201 (talk) 18:54, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
The revert I made yesterday was this: [2], and not too long ago there was this: [3]. I don't want to keep going back in time to find more. I use undo when I revert an edit in its entirety, but not when I make a partial revert. You can watchlist (even temporarily) any pages you change, and nobody owes it to you to notify you of every edit if you do not watch or look back. The fact that you are, apparently, confused about the consensus does not mean that the consensus doesn't exist. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:06, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
Tryptofish, I'm aware of the first one which is what I was referring to as the one I did make. The other I has forgotten about. I have approximately 2,000 pages on my watchlist, so I can miss stuff. I didn't say anybody did owe me, I was trying to politely ask you as a request, that's all. WP:NICE. Helper201 (talk) 19:13, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Please do not remove citations

Please do not blindly remove citations to GB News (or other sites, even if they are generally unreliable) without replacement as you did at 2021 Salisbury rail crash, Sadiq Khan and elsewhere, as this does not improve the encyclopaedia. Please spend some time to find replacement. If you cannot after a reasonable amount of effort, then if the citation does not verify the text then add {{failed verification}}, if the citation does verify the text then add {{better source needed}}. Ideally in both cases leave a note on the talk page and/or edit summary briefly outlining where you looked and what you found so that other editors don't needlessly duplicate your efforts. Thryduulf (talk) 20:15, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm very busy IRL and with many other Wikipedia edits, so don't always have the time to replace such a massive bulk as this, nor is this a requirement to do so. Though I understand and respect the general sentiment, I'm sure other editors can help fill in with finding other reliable sources rather than leaving all the work down to me, one single editor, when I'm already the one that's put in the effort to identify, find and remove this source that's been deemed unreliable. Nor am I responsible for the person that's been adding these on mass or should I solely be responsible for finding replacements for all of them just because I identified and removed unreliable sources. There’s only so much time I have and effort I can muster and Wikipedia is a community of editors. Also, its paramount we remove unreliable sources from biographies of living persons due to issues surrounding WP:BLP's. Helper201 (talk) 20:42, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
If you don't have time to look for a replacement then don't remove the citation, just mark it for others attention (e.g. by using {{better source needed}}). Remember that "generally unreliable" means generally not "always must be replaced instantly" - it is not "paramount" that they be removed from all articles instantly, remember context matters. If you only have limited time, then it is much better spent replacing the citation on 1 BLP with a better one than removing it without replacement from 10 articles that are not biographies. Even then, it is more important to remove it when used for (potentially) controversial statements than it is for uncontroversial ones (and they are also perfectly fine to use for WP:ABOUTSELF and similar situations). Just removing citations also makes it harder for other editors to find replacements as it's not obvious where they were removed from and they need to search the page history to find what the removed source said (as that often makes it much easier to find a replacement). Do also note that these citations were not "added en mass" they were added individually by editors working on individual articles, almost all in good faith - especially as the majority of them will have been added before the source was deemed unreliable - you need to assume more good faith and remember that there is no deadline and no rush.
Editors have in the past been sanctioned for similarly overzealous removed of citations without attempt at replacement. Your actions are not at that level yet, but if you continue to edit without regard to context or other editors it could end up at that level so please be careful. Thryduulf (talk) 22:03, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2022 Quebec general election, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Catherine Fournier.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

List of advocates of republicanism in the United Kingdom

Many thanks for adding the images at List of advocates of republicanism in the United Kingdom - it brightens up the article. Is there any chance you could do the same for the 'deceased' section please? Maybe logos for the 'Groups' section would be considered "fair use". Thank you. TrottieTrue (talk) 22:18, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

TrottieTrue, no problem. You’re welcome, and thank you for taking the time to come and thank me, it’s really appreciated. I've added some more as you asked. Feedback is welcome if you want to give it. All the best. Helper201 (talk) 19:15, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Women’s Equality Party

I have access to the WEP database and there are approximately 8,200 members. The article you are using as a reference from 2020 is misleading as they claimed 30,000 “members & supporters”. The supporters are just email addresses. MBAMG13% (talk) 12:31, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

MBAMG13% the problem is anyone could say what you are saying, regardless of whether it is the truth or not. You need to provide evidence for your change by citing a reliable source in the form of a citation. Otherwise please leave this alone. Helper201 (talk) 16:38, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
If you read the article you are using as evidence, it clearly says 30,000 “members & supporters” so your 30,000 members is incorrect. Perhaps change the box with members as the title to members & supporters? MBAMG13% (talk) 16:51, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
MBAMG13% it actually uses this figure specifically in regards to membership only. To quote the source specifically and directly - "... the assembly’s recommendations will then be put to the party’s 30,000-strong membership for consultation". Helper201 (talk) 16:56, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
They had 800 people at their last online conference in 2020. That was 10% of their membership. The person who wrote the article has taken the 30,000 members from their stated 30,000 “members & supporters”. It’s political spin and incorrect. MBAMG13% (talk) 17:28, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
MBAMG13% with all due respect we only have your word on that. It’s regarded as a reliable source and we go with what reliable sources explicitly state. You’re going to need to provide evidence from a reliable source if you want to change this. Helper201 (talk) 17:32, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
I have two screenshots of membership categories & numbers. I could send them to you by email but this talk doesn’t let me add them to it. MBAMG13% (talk) 17:39, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
MBAMG13% I'm afraid to my knowledge this would not be useable as a source to cite from. Helper201 (talk) 17:57, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Then you are colluding with political spin. WEP never claims 30,000 members but 30,000 members and supporters. MBAMG13% (talk) 18:05, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
MBAMG13% that's your point of view. You are welcome to open a Wikipedia:Requests for comment on the article's talk page - Talk:Women's Equality Party - if you want to get the views of other Wikipedia editors but I expect you will likely hear much of the same as what I have already said. Helper201 (talk) 18:10, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Free Democratic Party (Germany) has an RFC

Free Democratic Party (Germany) has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:43, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

James Burten (Egyptologist)

Hello Helper201, noticing your edit, I was wondering if this file can be inserted too. Cheers Lotje (talk) 13:29, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Lotje, done. Helper201 (talk) 13:51, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Please do not remove citations

Please do not remove valid and germane citations about this political party which has an extended history of disputing information, changing webpages or socmedia posts, and threats of litigation. These are matters of objective fact, not opinon. The circumstances of the alleged departure of Ukip Councillor Peter Cawthron, of Tendring District Council, are so startling as to require more detailed coverage. Your view, in contrast, that they are excessive in number is your opinion, and not fact. These are placed here, properly archived, in the interests of our Encyclopaedia. The citations to whose number you apparebtly object are not duplicates, and cover different aspects of a party which has lost all but five of about seven hundred of its councillor seats (a reduction of 99.3% - only the most recent departures are cited here, objectively starting with those that occurred at the time of the 2022 local elections - not an arbitrary choice), as well as 100% of its Lords, 100% of its MPs, 100% of its Assembly members (Wales and London), 100% its MEPs (while there were still UK MEPs in the EP), and about 96% of its peak membership. As you have been told by other editors, at least as recently in August, if you cannot invest a reasonable amount of effort to come to a reasonable conclusion about the status quo and reasons for inclusions, your interventions are unhelpful and your suggestions if carried out could appear not too different from vandalism. Ideally, instead leave a note on the talk page and/or edit summary briefly outlining where you looked and what you found so that other editors don't needlessly duplicate your efforts, and what specifically you think is duplicating or superfluous. Thank you.Albin-Counter (talk) 00:57, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Victorian Socialists, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Radical left.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 5 April 2023 (UTC)


Party colours

I have reverted your good faith edit on the party colour of Fusion Party in the 2023 Aston by-election article. We do not overwrite party colours like that. For your information, I have updated the colour in Template:Australian politics/party colours so that the correct colour is updated across Wikipedia wherever the Fusion Party colour is used. If you had manually overwritten colours with the colour code in other edits, could you please revert those edits and/or make the change to the forementioned template page, the colour should still remain the same even after you revert. Marcnut1996 (talk) 00:42, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Marcnut1996, okay, thank you for fixing this and apologies for the mistake. I haven't changed this anywhere else so your fix has cleared up the issue. Cheers. Helper201 (talk) 01:03, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Toronto 2023 By-Election

Hello, I see you're making edits to the 2023_Toronto_mayoral_by-election to have Chloe Brown included in the Infobox.

This has been discussed at length on the Talk page. The criteria for inclusion is consistently polling over 5%. An invitation to a debate does not warrant inclusion in the InfoBox. Please review the Talk page and discuss with editors there before adding again.

Discussion ensued about Anthony Furey, who saw 9% support on two recent polls. Same goes for Furey's inclusion in the Opinion Polling table. His recent support at 9% warranted adding him there.

Chloe Brown is not polling at 5% on any polls. As such, she doesn't meet criteria. kind regards - Greenwalnut (talk) 18:17, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Greenwalnut the discussion on the talk page does not seem to have ultimately concluded in a determined consensus yet in regards to who can and cannot be included in the infobox. Both myself and Turini2 think that candidates who are in the debates section should be placed in the infobox. It would be a major outlier to include every candidate who has been in a debate bar one (as would be the case if Chloe Brown were to be omitted). Also, I'd recommend you please leave an edit summary on your edits to describe them, especially when reverting other people's edits so they know why they've been reverted. Cheers. Helper201 (talk) 18:30, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

June 2023

Copyright problem icon Your edit to Irreligion in Australia has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 22:54, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Diannaa what evidence is there that the text you are referring to is copyrighted? Helper201 (talk) 23:27, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Under current copyright law, literary works are subject to copyright whether they are tagged as such or not. No registration is required, and no copyright notice is required. So please always assume that all material you find online is copyright. — Diannaa (talk) 00:16, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Diannaa And what evidence do you have for this and that it applies internationally and is applicable to a few lines someone wrote on a website? Helper201 (talk) 00:24, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
The best starting point for your reading us the Berne Convention; copyright law of the United States appies to Wikipedia, since the servers are located in that country. Wikipedia#Policies and laws covers that point. — Diannaa (talk) 04:20, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

July 2023

Regarding this edit. Please read WP:FORBESCON: URLs that start with forbes.com/sites are not a reliable source, more often than not. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:30, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Invitation

Hello Helper201!

  • The New Pages Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help.
  • We think that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the guidelines for granting.
  • Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines.
  • Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision, and feel free to post on the project talk page with questions.
  • If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please consider applying here.

Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around!

Sent by Zippybonzo using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 07:50, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

September 2023

Hello, hope you're well. Regarding your recent addition to the Labour Party leadership of Keir Starmer, I had a few issues and I was wondering if you could clarify them for me.

My main issue was that you added that "Blairites now dominated the Shadow Cabinet". Do you have a better/additional source other than an opinion piece from Owen Jones. I haven't seen another article make this specific claim explicitly yet. Most of the coverage seemed to be more along the lines of "Blairities win in reshuffle at the expense of the soft left" etc to me.

Also on a smaller point, I'm not sure what the reason was for adding three citations for a fairly basic claim (the Allin-Khan mental health portfolio part), the Big Issue and Left Foot Forward aren't very widely used, surely one very reliable source is sufficient for this instead? All the best Michaeldble (talk) 12:46, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi Michaeldble, yes, thank you, and you?
One source should be sufficient in so far as it explicitly states what is being claimed. Other sources say things to similar affect but don't use the term "dominate" specifically. I think it would be a bit much to enforce a requirement that more than one source must specifically use a precise term or word, of which there's no guideline to say editors need to do that. That being said if I find another, I'll add it.
There's not anything wrong with having more than one source for a claim. The only exception would be if it broke up the text or made the page difficult to read, of which this does not. Multiple sources only help to strengthen and solidify a claim in so far as the reader can view multiple sources that state such a claim. What benefit is it to reduce down the number of sources? Helper201 (talk) 12:59, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply.
I'm definitely not suggesting that only the word "dominate" is needed but I would say that I haven't seen another reliable source yet that says "the majority of the Cabinet is now Blairites" or something to this effect. I don't think an opinion piece from an author who is highly partisan would be sufficient for this claim personally.
I'm not aware of any wiki policy that states that yes, but the other two sources seem redundant to me. It's not a controversial statement or anything and the other two don't seem like the strongest sources anyway (Left Foot Forward and the Big Issue). It's not very important either way tbf. All the best Michaeldble (talk) 13:33, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Michaeldble:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/sep/04/starmers-promotion-of-blairites-shows-labour-focus-has-turned-to-governing ("One shadow minister said: “It’s an entirely factional takeover. It’s all the Blairites and they’ll all be champing at the bit to prove themselves.")
https://labourlist.org/2023/09/labour-shadow-cabinet-reshuffle-who-what-means/ ("‘More Blairites than Blair’" [...] "even Blair didn’t have this many Blairites in his cabinet")
Helper201 (talk) 13:50, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
I would prefer that Guardian article with attribution. Thanks for searching for those Michaeldble (talk) 14:21, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you for the correction, I rushed to link to the American Daily Worker because it was a far-left paper (and anti-colonialist in consequence).--- Darius (talk) 23:23, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Template boxes don't need evidence.

Hi there, just to let you know template boxes and info boxes do not require citations. The evidence is there on their respected pages if you click on the link. 213.1.17.183 (talk) 11:52, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

You might want to read - "No original research". All the best. Helper201 (talk) 12:10, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Victorian Socialists

Hi,

The problem as I see it with self-ascription is that political parties and individuals are inherently self-serving and generally not best placed to make such judgments. Additionally there is often genuine disagreement from others about such ascriptions. For example in the case of Victorian Socialists calling themselves Democratic-Socialists, the International Committee of the Fourth International calls them pseudo-left, reformist and non-socialist. WP:SELFSOURCE rules out material that is unduly self-serving or exceptional claims. The fact that other socialist groups disagree with Victorian Socialist's self-ascription that they are Democratic-Socialist, to me puts it in the category of being potentially unduly self-serving and therefore I think academic sources from subject matter experts who don't have a COI should be preferred or at the very least secondary sources which are WP:RS. I think this applies in general to political parties and individuals as what they have to say about themselves is generally influenced a lot by what they want their audience to think about them and there is generally disagreement from all sides about such matters, e.g. the Australian Labor Party's constitution says that it is Democratic-Socialist but it is anywhere from Centre-Left to Centre-Right depending on who you ask and I doubt you will find any academic who calls it Democratic-Socialist. TarnishedPathtalk 07:45, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Helper201/Archive_3&oldid=1197258784"