User talk:Sheriff U3

Welcome!

Hi Sheriff U3! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:02, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the links I will check them out. Sheriff U3 (talk) 23:20, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello Sheriff U3 and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you are interested, or you can add it directly to your user page by copying the following: {{WPMILHIST Announcements}}.
The project Academy has lots of useful information about editing and writing military history articles. One very useful introductory course to get you started is Writing a good stub.
Important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, writing contests, and article logistics.
We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
We've developed a set of guidelines that cover article structure and content, template use, categorization, and many other issues of interest.
If you're looking for something to work on, there are many articles that need attention, as well as a number of review alerts.
If you would like to receive the project's monthly newsletter, The Bugle, please sign up here.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any of the project coordinators or any other experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome, and we are looking forward to seeing you around! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 00:14, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your Teahouse answers

Hi @Sheriff U3 and welcome to Wikipedia! I noticed that you have given answers to several questions on the Teahouse. Since you have only been editing here for a few days, I don't think that you have the necessary understanding of Wikipedia processes and policies to be answering such questions yet. For example, in Wikipedia:Teahouse#Grammatical Error in Title Translation, you told the questioner that they could change an article's title by "edit[ing] the page". This is incorrect; to change an article's title you need to use the Move feature, not edit the page. You then replied again in that same question to say that "you need to contact a Admin to do that". This is also incorrect; in most cases an autoconfirmed user can move a page to a new title themselves without help from an admin (and the user who asked the question is indeed autoconfirmed). To avoid misleading people, I would suggest that you refrain from answering Teahouse or Help Desk questions until you have more experience with Wikipedia. Thanks! CodeTalker (talk) 00:38, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I think you are right, after that I looked into it and noticed that your above statements were true.

sorry for not responding sooner (time zone difference)

talk 13:41, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi Sheriff U3! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Reliable Sources, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread.

See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 16:21, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi Sheriff U3! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Projects, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread.

See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 16:23, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removing cleanup tags

Welcome, Sheriff U3! Thanks for jumping in to help out! Just a quick note: please take extra care when removing cleanup tags from articles. For instance, you removed an {{unreferenced section}} tag when you added a Goodreads reference, but Goodreads is not considered a reliable source because it's user-generated content. In addition, the tags you removed in this edit seem valid. There’s a "bare URL" warning in the References section, and the article definitely needs updating.

You might also find going through each section of the Help:Introduction guide helpful. Regards. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 00:15, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for informing me I will look at it. Thank you for being the one person so far that has given me reasons for the reverts they do.

Sheriff U3 talk 04:08, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see

After a little looking around, it seems your beef with KH-1 stems from their reversion of this edit by you. I get that you are fairly new here, so I will try to put this as nicely as I can: My advice to you would be to slow down and make sure you actually understand what it is you are doing before acting. KH-1 was absolutely correct to revert you, the reference you posted is a commercial website selling products, which absolutely is not what Wikipedia considers a reliable source.

So, you were wrong there, but you compounded it by trying to report them for edit warring while in no way demonstrating that they had done so. I have to say this seems very petty and not really done in good faith as you didn't even mention what you were actually upset about in the ANI thread. Reverting is not in and of itself a bad thing, edits are reverted all the time for any number of reasons, and none of the reverts you identified as being problematic in that ANI thread actually were.

Wikipedia has a lot of rules, which can be a little overwhelming sometimes, even to users like me who have been here for nearly eighteen years and made over a hundred thousand edits, so it's not a huge deal that you got the rules wrong in this case, so long as you proceed with a bit more caution going forward.

Most if not all Wikipedia policies andfor guidelines have "shortcuts" they are often referred to by. Some of the basic content policies pertinent to this specific situation would be

I also think for newcomers to get just a basic understanding of what it is we do here, nothing summarizes it better than WP:5. Hope this helps. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 00:46, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I understand there is a lot, and yes I am new.

But I am not upset about my revert, I have had it happen before, but I did ask him for an reason here. And I do want an answer from why he did so I may improve my editing, is that wrong?

I am upset though that he reverted this one. If you know trucks you will know what I mean.Sheriff U3 talk 04:03, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And if you say it is because of the site also selling.

Then why did he not just remove the reference and mark it for someone to look at.Sheriff U3 talk 04:13, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Information added to Wikipedia must be referenced to a reliable source, especially if challenged. The suspensionsetups.com site is a commercial site whose purpose is selling products; such sites generally should not be used (see WP:VENDOR). It is the responsibility of the editor adding information to provide a good reference (see WP:BURDEN). You cannot add unreferenced or poorly referenced information and expect another editor to spend their time trying to find references for it; that is your responsibility. If you found the information in a reliable source, you should add a reference to that source when you add the information. If you did not find the information in a reliable source, you should not add the information. Getting upset with another editor for not fixing your mistakes is not a good attitude to have here. CodeTalker (talk) 05:18, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks I am not asking him to fix it. Sorry I ever brought this up, All I wanted was a review of him, not a battle.

User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 05:35, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I figured out why I was tagged with spam finally, I know understand why it was done. But at the time I assumed that spam meant something different, namely posting the same thing over and over, as I am helping on an unrelated forum. And while it has been assumed that I was upset with the one person, I am not then or now. What I do what to make plain is I would recommend that editors state & link to wp:spam as it gives a lot of information. I wish I understood these things before or had them explained to me, as it would have changed my reaction greatly. As stated before I am sorry that things happened like they did. Just pinging a few of the involved parties so they can read this, @CodeTalker @Just Step Sideways @Daniel Quinlan @KH-1.

User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 18:43, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you for the WP:5 I will look at it. Sheriff U3 talk 04:09, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I finally understand

Hi, thank you for your recommendation! I finally understand what Reliable Sources are by taking a quiz. Reliable Sources are anti user-generated content. But my article talks about a game that does not have an official website. The only reference I get is from a not official and user-generated fandom wiki article. How can I get reliable sources without the official website existing. Nanb500001 (talk) 08:05, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way that you can make a Reliable Source. You just have to wait for it to talked about in the news, or in an article.

The main reason why Reliable Sources are not user generated content, is that on a Wiki the info can be changed at anytime.

And there is not an Editor looking at it to see if it is true a lot of the time, also sometimes it is the owner/devs that make those.

Anyways the best option is to just wait for Reliable Sources to talk about this game. Also you will need more than one Reliable Source.

I know that it can be frustrating, but there is no other way. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 16:25, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

Hi Sheriff U3, thank you for your contributions.

I replied to a reply you recently made at the Helpdesk, but I thought I might come here for a second brief word after seeing this reply to a question at the Teahouse which makes it clear you didn't even click through to the linked page before posting incorrect information as a response. Further, I think it was a pretty bad suggestion you made here for an editor to copy an article at AfD to their sandbox when there is an active ANI thread about it, and people !voting "delete and salt" at the AfD. This reply is not an answer to the question asked, which was about WP:REFNAME.

I'm encouraged that you're engaging with the project, but – kindly – I think that as an editor with 22 days tenure, your responses at these well-staffed help venues demonstrate that you don't yet have the experience necessary to answer questions there effectively. Folly Mox (talk) 12:33, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations now open for the WikiProject Military history newcomer of the year and military historian of the year

Nominations now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2024! The the top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki. Nominations are open here and here respectively. The nomination period closes at 23:59 on 30 November 2024 when voting begins. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. MediaWiki message delivery via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:21, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]