User talk:Helper201/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Conservative Party spectrum position

Heya, there’s been some dispute on the talk page for Conservative Party (UK) between another editor and I regarding the correct order and predominant description of the Conservative Party (extending to disagreement about the applicability of some of the sources). I, for one, agree with your edit putting ‘centre-right’ first as the predominant descriptor. I wonder if you would wish to include your opinion on the talk page discussion. Cheers, Will Thorpe (talk) 00:04, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Willthorpe, thanks for notifying me. I've responded on that talk page. Helper201 (talk) 20:17, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Sweet6970 (talk) 22:32, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Sorry

You are right, I made a mistake at Template:Discrimination. My apologies. Rsk6400 (talk) 08:02, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Rsk6400 no problem. Helper201 (talk) 22:55, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Discussion on European political alliances

Hi, since you had contributed to similar discussions in the past, I just wanted to flag a new discusion on Talk:European political party on how to categorise entities that are not European political parties. Happy to get your input! Julius Schwarz (talk) 09:32, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi

Blocked sock
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Sorry for writing on your talk page, but could you please do something about the totally unfair, inconsiderate and anti-academic reverts from the user who calls himself @FMSky? Nobody does anything, they just watch as he vandalizes every article he edits in one way or another. He always does the same thing. For example, in the article about the Greek Spartans party he simply removed the neo-fascism without justification, as always. And notice how you are one of the few 100% impartial and understanding users of this encyclopedia. 2800:2509:E:3AA6:4DE6:4E35:88D4:FCDC (talk) 03:53, 14 December 2024 (UTC) This is a sock account of Hidolo / AndresHerutJaim --FMSky (talk) 04:10, 14 December 2024 (UTC) Sock or not we should consider whether the claims in-of-themselves have merit. Helper201 (talk) 04:12, 14 December 2024 (UTC) Hi, he did the same in the Our Homeland Movement. 2800:2503:5:353A:277C:E7A8:D278:EF5F (talk) 01:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

McQueen wikiprojects

Wikiprojects should generally be limited to the most important facets of a subject. Otherwise, there'd be an overwhelming number on every page, and conversely, every wikiproject would be flooded with barely-related articles. McQueen had HIV+, but he wasn't an AIDS activist or otherwise well-known for having the virus. It doesn't make sense to place him within the AIDS wikiproject. Similarly, although he explored themes of sexuality in his designs, that does not mean his article falls under the topic of sexology. Many artists explore sex and sexuality; it doesn't make them sexologists. People trying to work on articles under that wikiproject are looking for topics like sex education or Alfred Kinsey. The page for the suicide task force under the death project says they are concerned with "suicide rates, causes, philosophy, legislation, prevention, etc" - articles about suicide, not individual people who happened to commit suicide. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:24, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Singer nationality

Hello, I saw your edit summary for your edit on Natalie Horler, and turns out I started a discussion in the article's talk page to form on consensus on their nationality. Sparkbean (talk) 02:58, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of 2020s in history for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2020s in history is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Decades in history until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Sm8900 (talk) 20:10, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Hubert Burda

Please see Talk:Hubert_Burda with regard to how we should present Hubert Burda's birthplace in the infobox. Any objections to my proposal? Edwardx (talk) 00:12, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Video Game RfC

Hello, do you mind if I modify your Video Game RfC question (Talk:Video_game#RFC:_lead_image) to say "Which of the following images should replace the current lead image?" Some1 (talk) 04:57, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi Some1, sure no problem. I appreciate you coming here to ask me this and help with it. All the best and thanks for the help. Helper201 (talk) 05:03, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks! Just letting you know too that I've added an image to the gallery (option F). Some1 (talk) 05:13, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Some1 no problem. I've just added two more options. If you could take a look at them and add them to your vote if you support one or both of them that would be appreciated. Helper201 (talk) 05:42, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Restore edition

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hellenic_Anarchist . Can you restore Niki's article? Thank you! 130.43.65.198 (talk) 19:30, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Done. Helper201 (talk) 19:37, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

💯 130.43.65.198 (talk) 18:50, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Nowrap class inside hlist

I removed your addition of a nowrap class inside a horizontal list template which displays genres in the infobox. There is no reason why the genres should be prevented from wrapping. The reader is not inconvenienced by a genre term wrapping down to the next line.

Also, IF this style was needed for some other reason, the correct method is described differently at the very bottom of the instructions at Template:Hlist. Binksternet (talk) 22:51, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Binksternet a genre like progressive rock can appear to some readers as two separate genres if it breaks over two lines. That's why nowrap was introduced. To place it there serves no disadvantage and only helps the reader. Fine if it should be wrapped in a different way. Helper201 (talk) 17:50, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

You can target one or two problematic terms with individual nowrap templates. Binksternet (talk) 18:14, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Binksternet would you mind doing that on one of my edits you reverted please and I'll fix the others? Helper201 (talk) 18:17, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Please read the sources before "restoring what they say"

On the page Women and video games

"In 2008, a Pew Internet & American Life Project study found that among teens, 65% of men and 35% of women describe themselves as daily gamers." missrepresents what the source says: https://web.archive.org/web/20130712192449/http://www.pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2008/PIP_Teens_Games_and_Civics_Report_FINAL.pdf.pdf

1) "Some 65% of daily gamers are male; 35% are female."

Notice, not 35% of females are daily gamers, but 35% of daily gamers are females. Notice, 35%+65%=100%

2) "Boys are significantly more likely to play games daily than girls, with 39% of boys reporting daily game play and 22% of girls reporting the same." So there's 39% of daily gamers among boys, not 65%

+ The table based on 2017 study https://quanticfoundry.com/2017/01/19/female-gamers-by-genre/ Doesn't list Mario Kart anywhere But it does list World of Warcraft as an outlier Transfrogirl (talk) 15:03, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Transfrogirl please in the future use the edit summary to explain your changes. Also be careful of not violating WP:SYNTH. Helper201 (talk) 16:40, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi, coming here as well from the Women and VGs page--second what Helper says, please use edit summaries. I fully thought it was vandalism because you were just undoing edits and on a quick read, I could find the 65% number in the source. Thanks for double checking that number and making the edit. Alyo (chat·edits) 14:04, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I'm sorry, will use the summaries in the future. Transfrogirl (talk) 20:54, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

See also sections

Please focus on adding sourced content to articles, which is going to help our readers more than dumping links. Especially don't dump links on featured articles. It has already been reviewed for comprehensiveness which means that all links that are significantly important to the topic are already linked in the text. Your see also section in this case is failing WP:GLOBAL by focusing excessively on the United States. (t · c) buidhe 07:39, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

buidhe there is nothing wrong with having a see also section, it's a purposeful aspect of most non-biographical Wikipedia pages. In no way was I "dumping links". These links have been selected because they are important to the topic. Finally, no, it does not break WP:GLOBAL. The majority of the links (5 of the 7) are not about the US. Helper201 (talk) 07:43, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

While see also sections are not banned, they are not required either. As any other content they are subjected to WP:ONUS, which means that the editor(s) who want to add the content have to seek consensus if it's disputed. I am asking that you self revert until such time as a consensus to add these links can be shown. (t · c) buidhe 07:47, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

buidhe not "required" and wiping as you did are two completely different things. Just because something is not "required" doesn't meant it can't be included or that it doesn't help the reader to include it. I don't see the presentation of any reasoning that's valid to remove this information. Helper201 (talk) 07:52, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

I've explained my reasoning for opposing it. As there is currently no consensus to keep the see also section, it should be excluded per WP:ONUS. (t · c) buidhe 08:33, 17 April 2025 (UTC)