PROFILPELAJAR.COM

Φ

"Israeli Invasion of Syria".

Hi, we recently interacted when we both contacted a user to explain why he marked a request-move discussion on the 2024 Israeli Invasion of Syria page closed. To date the user, AndreFarfan, has not responded with any clarifications (and in the meantime another user on the article's talk page also pointed out that the action seemed unjustified_. Since then the discussion was archived by the user, Lowercase sigmabot III. According to their talk page the account is a bot which is not maintained and it's talk page is not monitored. It apparently closed the discussion on the basis of an algorithm and can't contacted about it (without emailing, which would compromise a user's identity). I do not yet have the extended confirmed user status needed to participate in discussions on that page, so I am reaching out to you as it was clear that you wish for the discussion to be conducted in a proper, by-the-rules manner in which a single non-admin user can't arbitrarily shit down the discussion when there is zero indicator that it has ended. Would it be possible for you to revert the archival of the discussion and revert its closed status as the AndreFarfan had no apparent justification and has failed to provide any when requested to do so by multiple users? (Disclaimer: I am relatively new (which is why I can't participate in the discussion), so I don't know what exactly the rules in this situation are.)

Also gonna take a second to thank you for your service (according to your user page), "thank you" seems so pathetic when I can't even begin to imagine the sacrifice that service in the armed forces requires but I hope it means something to you. Shaked13 (talk) 01:49, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. With regard to the move discussion, the archival is not actually important -- the important thing is that a Move Review discussion was started at Wikipedia:Move_review. That was why I was reaching out to Andre Farfan on their talk page and waiting a few days for a response, as per the process for opening a move review. As they were unresponsive, I went ahead to go create the move review discussion only to find that someone else had already beat me to it. In any event, the move review will analyze whether the move was conducted within process and in this case should hopefully conclude that it wasn't, and either relist it, or conduct a proper close themselves. As a note, since that is a formalized discussion relating to a contentious topic area in Wikipedia namespace, only extended-confirmed editors (at least 500 edits, 30 days old account) can participate in that discussion. Otherwise there's nothing else to do -- the move review can take some time (straightforward ones are pretty quick over a few days, complex ones can last weeks) and when concluded, the closer of the move review will take any actions necessary on the article. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 02:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Σ (which is redirected from User talk:Lowercase sigmabot III) is monitored, by me (amongst others). I explained at User talk:Σ#Israeli Invasion of Syria why the thread was archived. Briefly: Lowercase sigmabot III does not know whether a thread is ongoing or not, all it knows is how long it is since the thread was last posted to. --Redrose64 🦌 (talk) 21:53, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I figured it was automated; that's why I mentioned to Shaked13 that the archival didn't really matter so long as someone remembered to request the Move Review in time. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 00:12, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For your work in the move review and reopening of the 2024 Israeli incursions into Syria discussion. Rc2barrington (talk) 21:23, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I've gotten a barnstar in at least a decade, maybe longer. Thanks! ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 21:32, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What am I doing wrong?

I edited the campaigns for the 509th Infantry. Why did you revert it? I put the source in “external links.” What part of this is incorrect? 50.51.88.60 (talk) 00:15, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two problems. First, external links is not where references go -- those should be properly formatted with <ref> tags in-line with the claim they are supporting. More importantly however, the website you were citing to does not satisfy Wikipedia's reliable source guidelines. This is frequently an issue when citing to unofficial unit association websites such as the one with the 509th -- they're often of dubious reliability and while they may be right (or may not be), we have no good way of verifying that information is accurate. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 00:40, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Thank you for your response. As I said before, I am new to editing on Wikipedia and am still figuring some things out. I will keep these things in mind for the future. Sorry to have taken your time; I appreciate it. 50.51.88.60 (talk) 01:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. As a note, you don't need to make a new section when replying (though perhaps that's a setting you have configured if you're editing using your phone or using the visual editor). You can normally just reply below the line from the person you're talking to. Hope this helps. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 02:26, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reply and an edit

I want to start by saying I saw in your reply that I don't need to make a new section when replying but I’m not sure how to do that, so I just added a new topic. I edited the campaign participation credit for the 24th Infantry Division by adding the Central Pacific Campaign credit to the tree list. In the “references” I added to sources the link of where I got this information (https://www.armydivs.com/24th-infantry-division). Did I do this right or is there something else I need to do? 50.51.88.60 (talk) 04:26, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Close, but not quite in the right place and a couple of mistakes. So first, you added the reference in the wrong location. As you can see here, you added it directly to the end below the template for the references section. That makes sense from the perspective of a reader, but doesn't actually work -- what you actually needed to do is to add that reference in-line, directly after the thing you're citing. So in this case, that would be immediately after the words you added ""Central Pacific"; that's where you'd want to add the reference. A properly formatted reference will automatically add itself to the right reference section and update it's number as needed, which is why we always put them in-line with the content it is supporting. Your addition wasn't formatted properly though, so it didn't automatically do that. One additional issue -- the link to Central Pacific goes to the wrong page -- that's a disambiguation page, not the specific page you wanted (which was probably Central Pacific Area. So what you'd have wanted to add would have been "*[[Central Pacific]]<ref>https://www.armydivs.com/24th-infantry-division</ref>", but change the words "Central Pacific" to whatever the correct name of the page you're linking to is. (There are fancier/better ways to format the reference but that's the simplest way that works). Hope that helps. Let me know if you need further assistance. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 21:41, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reply and Edit (Continued)

So I did add the correct link for “Central Pacific.” I redirected it from the region page to the “Attack on Pearl Harbor” page since the 24th first engaged the Japanese there. I thought “Central Europe” would just direct to the Attack on Pearl Harbor, so that’s the mistake I made there. Also, on another page for a British Army brigade it had “Monte Cassino” spelled incorrectly (as Monte Casino) so I corrected it. I don’t have to put a reference for that do I? Could you write a numbered list I could follow for the correct way to attach the reference? I really appreciate your help; thank you. 50.51.88.60 (talk) 02:47, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For a misspelling/typo change, no that doesn't require a reference. You might start with this video from the Wikimedia foundation (it's short, 2 minutes) that walks you through how to cite a source. Youtube link. (You can probably skip ahead to about halfway through, to the part at about 1:10 where they start talking about "<ref>" tags. The part before this is a one-time setup that's already been done for you on most articles already, it's the second half with the Ref tags that you have to do each time.)⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 02:56, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This one may also be useful for helping with editing user talk page (which work the same way as article talk pages), though depending on what device you use to edit it may look somewhat different. Youtube link. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 02:58, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Intelligence Support Activity

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Intelligence Support Activity, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 01:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sat Jan 25: Wikipedia Day NYC 2025

January 25: Wikipedia Day

Brooklyn Central Library

You are invited to Wikipedia Day 2025, hosted by Wikimedia NYC at the Brooklyn Public Library's central branch.

The special focus this year will be the launch of our "400 Neighborhoods" campaign for the city's 400th anniversary and WikiProject New York City/400 Task Force.

We'll also have a lightning talks session and you're invited to sign up for one, though space is somewhat limited.