User talk:Helper201

Helper201 is currently experiencing mental health issues, which may affect their Wikipedia editing in various ways. They may have: altered perception when making editorial judgements, determining consensus, or reading Wikipedia discussions addressed to them; reduced availability on Wikipedia during times when they experience issues; limited capacity to respond to other Wikipedians via talk page or email messages in a timely fashion, to participate in conflict resolution, or to complete their usual workload of Wikipedia tasks. Thank you for your understanding.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 28 days are automatically archived 1 or more at a time by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 4.

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.

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)

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)

Hi- I am curious about some of your edits to lists of political parties. It seems you've removed logos due to legibility concerns, but the text of images is not required to be legible on Wikipedia (and it frequently is not). The basis for their inclusion is the fact that they are recognizable symbols, which stays true even if text is too small to be legible. Users also always have the option to click on images to expand them. Would you consider reverting some of your removals? WMSR (talk) 20:13, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WMSR. I’ve outlined my concerns on pages such as here and here. Just because it’s not required doesn't necessarily make it right or wrong. It’s also the case that even if the same pixel sizes are used logos can still appear larger or smaller than the others, irrespective of text size. I think we should strive to make Wikipedia as accessible platform as possible. I think its best these discussions are kept to the relevant talk pages, such as those where I started the discussions. That way hopefully other edits can chime in with suggestions of how the logos can be included in a way that works with sizing. There may be some way of fixing the issues I've highlighted. Helper201 (talk) 11:58, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If your concerns involves several articles or actions you intend to carry out on any and all articles that apply, there should be a central, single discussion about them, not multiple discussions on different pages that potentially could establish different consensuses. 331dot (talk) 12:01, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 331dot, thank you. How and where exactly should this be done? Helper201 (talk) 12:06, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Probably WP:VPR.

I would add that logos that are non-free "fair use" images may be required to be in a low-resolution appearance. 331dot (talk) 12:10, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly reverting content back to how you think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree. Once it is known that there is a disagreement, users are expected to collaborate with others, avoid editing disruptively, and try to reach a consensus – rather than repeatedly reverting the changes made by other users.

Important points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive behavior – regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not engage in edit warring – even if you believe that you are right.

You need to discuss the disagreement on the article's talk page and work towards a revision that represents consensus among everyone involved. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution if discussions reach an impasse. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to engage in edit warring, you may be blocked from editing.

• Please wait for the noticeboard discussion to finish before forcing your preferred version.

Thanks in advance, Augmented Seventh (talk) 19:35, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Augmented Seventh, huh??? What edit war??? Helper201 (talk) 19:37, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you are referring to the Zack Polanski page this was addressed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#BLP content where it was concluded that there isn't an edit war. I don't think anyone has made more than 3 reverts of the same content within 24-hours on this page. Things have been discussed there and on the article’s talk page. No one is doing any edit warring or mass reverts. Helper201 (talk) 19:43, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, thank you. Augmented Seventh (talk) 22:04, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Scientelensia has asked for a deletion review of Zack Polanski breast enlargement controversy. Because you participated in the deletion discussion for this page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Orange sticker (talk) 07:34, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Zack Polanski breast enlargement controversy. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Best wishes, Scientelensia (talk) 23:39, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add – I know you have been notified already, but Spartaz made it quite clear to me that I should too – I took no chances. Apologies for the bother. Scientelensia (talk) 13:20, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I am letting you know that a Request for Comments has been opened at Talk:Republic Movement#RfC: Categorization and description of party ideology regarding how to describe the party's ideology and origins. As you have been involved in past edits or discussions on this page, your input would be appreciated to help reach a consensus. Dasomm (talk) 10:53, 18 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]