User talk:Helper201

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Note - I briefly set up the account User:Helper201V2 when I was having trouble logging into this account. That account only ever engaged in talk about my account and never made any edits. I did not make any edits to any pages with it and will not use it to make any edits unless otherwise stated. This is the one and only account I use.

Hello, Helper201! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 19:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply] Getting Started Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community (The Signpost) Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Hello. The accounts submitted to the EC actually have this membership figure on them. There used to be a citation on the page showing this but it has since been removed - apparently the citation isn't open to the general public yet, but it should be shortly (it's actually over-due but the snap general election has slowed down the electoral commission some what). It's a bit of a waste of time to edit the graph only to change it back in a week or two - especially when I know the information to be valid.

The mention of the body does not say that she is dead. But it does connect to her late father’s wish to give her a proper Christian burial. If you are willing to accept that, pls undo previous edit. If not, pls mention in the Talk.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]