User talk:Helper201
|
|||||
|
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.
Welcome!
|
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.
No body
[edit]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.
Thank you dear for updating Awami league page back to original
[edit]Dear, I have noticed that you edited Awami League page back to original one and I'm delighted that you have done that. Unfortunately, users like Vif12vf|,Nzs9|, and ShrewMoon| take down good edits. I strongly advice you to monitor, Awami League page. It is being vandalized by users that are putting on false information and arguing about topics that they do not understand.2607:FEA8:A75B:7100:5A4:16B3:2839:64DB (talk) 18:47 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Please stop Nzs9 from editing
[edit]Nzs9|, is keeping on editing on Awami league page. He does it and then even has it undone. I would advice to monitor him and report him so he gets a ban from editing on Awami league page.2607:FEA8:A75B:7100:5A4:16B3:2839:64DB (talk) 14:27 20 March 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:A75B:7100:D4B6:874C:1C1F:7A6 (talk)
Notice
[edit]Disambiguation link notification for May 10
[edit]An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of political parties in the United Kingdom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Localism.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:56, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
May 2025
[edit]Please read WP:STATUSQUO - you have to demonstrate that your disputed edit is appropriate before reinserting it. Please also read the essay WP:BRD and please understand that you don't need to do three reverts to edit-war. And after you've read those things please self-revert your disputed edit. Simonm223 (talk) 16:38, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
- Simonm223 the status quo is not this. This was inserted on 25 April (less than a month ago), while discussions on the matter were ongoing. Its not the long-standing version of the page. Helper201 (talk) 16:46, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
- Nonsense. Self-revert. Simonm223 (talk) 16:47, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
- Well, that wasn't very constructive. Helper201 (talk) 16:48, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
- Your claim that a month isn't long enough to count as status-quo is self-dealing to protect a disputed edit that you edit warred back in. My reticence to engage in edit warring means I'm going to lean on you to appropriately follow policy. It doesn't mean I have to mince words. Simonm223 (talk) 16:51, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
- For one, its less than a month. Two, if you think that less than a month is enough to warrant status quo classification then open up a discussion with others and see what they say. I've had many such discussions on similar matters and I've seen plenty of people point to this sort of time frame not counting as the long-standing version or status quo. It’s not about "mincing words", saying "Nonsense. Self-revert." gives zero room for discussion or dialogue; it has no constructiveness to it whatsoever. This is just someone that has shoehorned in disputed content that is undergoing talk page discussion that should be left out and remain to the long-standing version. Helper201 (talk) 16:58, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
- It's rather irrelevant. A second editor has reverted you. I expect this is the end of this. Simonm223 (talk) 17:07, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
- For one, its less than a month. Two, if you think that less than a month is enough to warrant status quo classification then open up a discussion with others and see what they say. I've had many such discussions on similar matters and I've seen plenty of people point to this sort of time frame not counting as the long-standing version or status quo. It’s not about "mincing words", saying "Nonsense. Self-revert." gives zero room for discussion or dialogue; it has no constructiveness to it whatsoever. This is just someone that has shoehorned in disputed content that is undergoing talk page discussion that should be left out and remain to the long-standing version. Helper201 (talk) 16:58, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
- Your claim that a month isn't long enough to count as status-quo is self-dealing to protect a disputed edit that you edit warred back in. My reticence to engage in edit warring means I'm going to lean on you to appropriately follow policy. It doesn't mean I have to mince words. Simonm223 (talk) 16:51, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
- Well, that wasn't very constructive. Helper201 (talk) 16:48, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
- Nonsense. Self-revert. Simonm223 (talk) 16:47, 23 May 2025 (UTC)