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)
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
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 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
Hello Sheriff U3 -- I've declined this speedy because there are claims in the article, such as leading an opera that was televised and critically acclaimed. In general with established articles (say more than 6 months old) it's best not to use A7 because the article has been assimilated by the community, to the point that the views of a single patroller and admin should not overrule the broader community's covert decision to accept the article.
More generally I noticed that you are adding a lot of referencing tags to articles, some of which seem unnecessary, eg on Bryocaulon. Always consider trying to find sources where you can, rather than tagging an article for lacking them, it's a lot more useful for developing the encyclopedia! Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 10:29, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[Edit conflict] While I'm here, and sorry to overwhelm you with feedback, but you also should not change headings for the references section to say "References" rather than "Notes"; either is fine, and some editors prefer to use "Notes". Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 10:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I did not know that, I just thought it was a mistake. Will keep that in mind for the future! If there is anything you notice about my editing that you think I should change just let me know. I am open to an input I get! Sheriff U3 | Talk | Con 10:40, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think would be a good rule of thumb for determining when an article has enough references? I imagine it varies since some will always have more then others. Sheriff U3 | Talk | Con 10:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's no set number of sources needed. Generally if all the statements that need references are covered by a reference that looks adequately reliable for what it is covering, there's no need to tag the article, unless it is about a living person. For all other articles, references are only actually required for stats/data, claims of importance, quotations, opinion and the like, see WP:Verifiability. Only if there are swathes of paragraphs or whole sections completely unsourced (or sourced to something considered unreliable such as IMDb) then it might be worth tagging the article as needing sources.
Even for a living person flat factual statements that the person worked at a particular place or studied xyz at abc university can often be safely left unsourced, unless there's some reason to doubt the information. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 11:30, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings Sheriff U3, Thank you for your recent contributions at WikiProject Wikipedia Assessment, Requests_from_2024 With these older requests (December 2024), it would be helpful to include the requester's Name, either (1) in the "Done" line of the request, or (2) within the reply Edit summary. That way, the requester is notified of your article assessment activity. Cheers! JoeNMLC (talk) 12:46, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief 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 an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
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.
It happened because you copied content from one article to another (without proper attribution, by the way, but I put a note on the new article's talk page to address that). In the source article, the refs were defined in other sections and just called in the copied content. You copied over the ref calls but not their definitions. Schazjmd(talk)16:41, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok new to this so did not know that. Thanks for putting the notice on there, did not know I needed to do that. Looks like I need to do some homework on how to split a page. If you notice anything I need to do or missed just let me know. I try to correct any issues as quickly as possible. Sheriff U3 | Talk | Con 16:45, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, would you kindly provide your reasoning for assessing the Domestic pigeon article at C-class? If it is due to lacking coverage in certain roles that domestic pigeons perform, they are covered in their respective pages which are linked within the article body itself. Thanks! Anthropophoca (talk) 02:11, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I assessed it at C-class is that I currently do not see myself as having enough experience to assess an article at B-class. So it is not a case of me not thinking that it is not a B-class article. I think that someone more experienced should review it. Overall I think it is a great article and would deserve a B-class rating if another reviewer agrees. I just have not yet reached the point that I think I could assess an article above C-class. Thanks for asking though! Sheriff U3 | Talk | Con 06:12, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Re:WikiProject Christianity
Dear User:Sheriff U3, I have been very active in editing WikiProject Christianity-related articles. These articles constitute a large number of my edits. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk22:25, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for responding, I am trying to revive the project so I was checking with everyone on the member list to see if they are active in the project/what to remain in it. Also I have been moving users that have not edited on WP for a long time/have been blocked to the inactive list. Thanks again for letting me know! Sheriff U3 | Talk | Con 22:32, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sheriff U3 Thank you for the reassessment you did recently on articles I requested. I had no idea this project had stalled. I have been working on History of Christianity in an effort to get it FA - for two years now - so that remains my primary focus, but I am willing to help with this project when I can. What is needed? I don't know how to reassess, but I am willing to learn. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:52, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So right now we are trying to get things reorganized. I am wanting to hold an election soon, maybe within a month. Most of what is needed is making sure things are working correctly and filling positions. Assessing articles is easy, here is some instructions: Assessment#Instructions. You also have importance assessments, but I have not done much of that. The instructions I gave you are site-wide but some projects have their own assessment system (like WikiProject Military History) but that does not interfere with the site-wide system, it just is a assessment system their project use internally. If you need any help finding things to do, or just want to learn something let me know. I will be stating the positions that need to be elected soon, like I said within a month. Most likely in the next newsletter edition. Currently I am auditing the member lists and mailing lists, don't need help there as it is easier for me to do myself. (That way I can keep track of who I have audited.) Also I did not really assess the articles, I just looked at them to see what condition they were in and posted that to the reply's. If they were more recent I would have given them a full review. One thing I should note as well is, I don't know how to run WikiProject so I am learning as I go. So if you think I messed up something let me know and I will try to fix it. Sorry for the length of this response. Sheriff U3 21:24, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No sorry. I would prefer to keep anything related to Wikipedia on here. Sadly no matter what platform we use will have the issue of time zones and not being on at the same time. As far as the WP:X stuff we can use the project's systems. (i.e. the Project's talk pages and discussion pages.) I have discovered there is a Newsroom page for the project. I am currently trying to learn how to create and edit the projects systems and templates. Will let you know if I find anything that you should or will need to know. Sheriff U3 | Talk | Con 03:19, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So now I am on the Wikipedia Discord Page so if you need to contact me outside of Wikipedia please use that. Note that I will be able to respond faster to things on Wikipedia if you ping me then if you contact me through Discord. My Discord username is: sheriff_u3 and my display name Sheriff U3. Sheriff U3 05:18, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Broken userbox
Hello, I was just checking your user page and I saw your userboxes are kinda broken. Just wanted to let you know in case you didn't realize. Have a good day! --NeoGaze (talk) 19:49, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Viewing from my laptop there are long white spaces between boxes in which "Project Memberships" and "Badges Earned" appear laterally outside the box to the right. These phrases appear in a single line from top to bottom. I send you a screenshot. Removing the code lines "=== Project Memberships ===" and "=== Badges Earned ===" fixed the infobox in my end, but you probably want to maintain those. --NeoGaze (talk) 21:51, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is interesting, on my end the words on the side are the headers and are in the right place. When I use a different browser though it shows what you see. I will remove the headers to see what that does. Sheriff U3 | Talk | Con 22:06, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah it is fixed but the result is exceptionally ugly. I tested this code and it looks slightly better, so maybe consider using it instead. You can customize the box template yourself if you will. Otherwise, perhaps the better option would be collapsible tables --NeoGaze (talk) 22:45, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Project Memberships
Badges Earned
How does it look now? I need to work on color, but I would like to know that the format is good before I spend time on the color of the table. Thanks for helping me with this, as I had no clue that my user boxes looked like that and I have used that format for a long time lol. Sheriff U3 | Talk | Con 23:11, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine to me! Happy to know I have helped you. Just as a curiosity, things like these happen all the time in web design. I was preparing a website with a set of social media icons and their display were completely different on mobiles hahahah. That was amusing to fix. Have a good one! --NeoGaze (talk) 23:22, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I had no idea this could happen lol. Will check in the future with a different browser, I use DuckDuckGo mostly. Sheriff U3 | Talk | Con 23:32, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved content from Cy Girls into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content (here or elsewhere), Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Cy Girls (video game) * Pppery *it has begun...04:06, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pppery I had given the needed attribution before you even posted here on my talk page.[1][2] Also I did it with in 5mins of splitting the page, and that was with multiple tabs open at the same time. So not sure how I can do it much faster. I always have used the {{copied}} template for any splits I have made. Any thing else I should have done? It looks to me like I have been following the rules regarding attribution. The only thing that you mentioned that I did not do was add attribution to the edit summary, but if I have the attribution on the talk page of both articles I should not need to have attribution in the edit summary, correct? Thanks for checking! Though I would have appreciated it if you had first checked the time stamp of the split and waited at least 15mins before posting here about attribution. As I think what happened is you saw the split right after I did it, then checked the talk page to see if I have added attribution, but you did not see it because when you looked I was adding in the needed data to the template, then you went to my talk page to inform me about it, but by the time you posted I had already posted the attribution 10 mins before. Sheriff U3 04:41, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This edit, while I still object to it, did trigger me to actually act on the issue that had fallen off my radar long ago. So now we have an improved encyclopedia for our readers. All's well, and all that:) DMacks (talk) 01:19, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
DMacks Your welcome, you reverting me surprised me some as I though it was long forgotten split suggestion. After seeing that it was a year old and the discussion was in the archives is part of what made me decide to remove it. Though one could look at it and say I should have split the article due to the consensus to split it. To be clear I am fine with the fact that you reverted me and did the split. It is a improvement to what the article used to be. Thanks for splitting it as I can't make much sense out of what was being discussed other then a section (or sections) were to be split out. Also can you tell me what you object about me removing the tag, I am just interested in knowing the reasoning behind it, as you most likely have a completely different view-point to me. (Especially with the fact you have been on Wikipedia for almost 20yrs and have made over 188,000 edits in that time and a Admin.) Will look forward to your response! :)
The quick improvement in workflow would be to use the edit-summary to explain why you made the change. For example, if you saw a discussion that seemed to have reached a consensus not to make a change, that's akin to a WP:NAC conclusion. But a hit'n'run tag that had no discussion and was either unreasonable on its face or was from a blocked sock, removing it is probably straightforward cleanup process. A tag without discussion could also be a case where discussion got moved or renamed (or where the tagger forgot to indicate where the discussion was), so simply removing the tag would be a good-faith misunderstanding of the process. In that case, someone watching the page might be motivated to find that discussion and decide what to do with it. Definitely no problem if you find a discussion that doesn't make sense itself or has an apparent consensus to make changes to content you don't feel comfortable carrying out. But removing a tag that does have a discussion with a consensus to take some action, and then not taking that action, is akin to deciding on your own to overrule the consensus. In a case where you don't quite know what needs to be done (other than "something needs to be done") try asking those involved (they might have forgotten about it), or ping the relevant wikiproject's talkpage (editors with expertise in the topic could figure it out). DMacks (talk) 11:47, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You created Halcidhoma language from Halchidhoma but left an orphaned reference - {{Sfn|Kelly|1972}} - within the newly-created article. You also did not cite a page number so your cite was incomplete. I have adjusted the sfn cite & included the page number - Shearonink (talk) 22:55, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bst might be a reliable source so sorry about removing those links. But gq is definitely not, we already had a conversation on Wikipedia about that. 74.132.73.79 (talk) 00:03, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was reviewing your recent contributions following your request at WP:PERM/PCR, and I noticed that when you reverted this IP's edits, it seems you used Twinkle's "vandalism" button. These edits are not vandalism in Wikipedia's definition of that term—the user was removing content because they felt it was not properly sourced. If you disagree with that, you should explain that in your edit summary or in a talk page discussion. Mz7 (talk) 07:52, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know that they were not vandalism, but the undo but on was not working for some reason. His edits were in good faith, but not correct. If the undo button was working I would have used it. Sheriff U3 13:32, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please give me the link for that discussion? From what I what seeing on the articles they were well sourced so we can use a little bit of sources like GQ. Sheriff U3 13:36, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pending changes reviewer granted
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.
Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.
I added sources. And an edit summary. Did you even read my edit before reverting it? 2600:1702:2A40:B10:BD38:C8B4:CD20:CAF5 (talk) 14:59, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I didn't see that you had added the reference in there. I read your edit summary and thought that is what you were using for references. I did read through your edits and your edit summary. I will be having some one else review your edit to see what they think. Sorry again for not seeing the reference, will look closer in the future. Sheriff U3 19:25, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved content from Cy Girls into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content (here or elsewhere), Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., 
You must be logged in to post a comment.