Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 03:04, 22 January 2025

Φ

This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as contentious topics: gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes) governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues the Arab–Israeli conflict They should not be given alerts for those areas.

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)

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 Misplaced Pages'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 00:40, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Reply

Thank you for your response. As I said before, I am new to editing on Misplaced Pages 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)

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 02:26, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

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)

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 "*]<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 21:41, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

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)

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 02:56, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

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 02:58, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

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)

Sat Jan 25: Misplaced Pages Day NYC 2025

January 25: Misplaced Pages Day
You are invited to Misplaced Pages 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. Saturday, January 25, 2025 12:00 pm – 5:00 pm Brooklyn Central Library, Grand Army Plaza Afterparty: 6:00 pm – 9:00 pm (off-site venue, TBA)
All attendees at Wikimedia NYC events are subject to the Wikimedia NYC Code of Conduct.

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 225, January 2025

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Pickersgill-Cunliffe and Nick-D look at Germans in the Flanders Campaign and 50 years of Australian military history Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on the state of the Wikiproject

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 07:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

PLAAF involvement in Vietnam

I hope you’re well. I noticed that my recent edit on the PLAAF page was reverted, and I would like to kindly ask for a reconsideration. In my edit, I referenced the deployment of both PLAAF and PLAGF units, including anti-aircraft units, during the Vietnam War. This information is based on sources that highlight the significant involvement of Chinese forces in supporting North Vietnam during the conflict.

I understand there may be concerns regarding the accuracy or the context of my addition, and I’d be happy to discuss it further or provide additional sources to clarify. I believe this aspect of the Vietnam War is an important part of the PLAAF’s history and would appreciate the opportunity to have the edit restored.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Here is my current non English sources I found, is these source acceptable to re add it?:

Source1: https://news.ifeng.com/history/1/jishi/200811/1107_2663_867254.shtml
Source2: http://hprc.cssn.cn/gsyj/wjs/gjyz/201606/P020180416372852730156.pdf

AussieSurplus1510 (talk) 09:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC) AussieSurplus1510 (talk) 09:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Your source did not support the edits you were trying to make -- it made no mention of the PLAAF, it simply referenced "air defense units" without any indication of what branch they belonged to. That source also does not meet our standards for reliability -- it's simply an aggregator republishing content without endorsement of its accuracy, and the original source was not reliable. Neither of the two sources you've provided here are sufficient either -- the first is a highly biased opinion piece that makes grandiose claims while failing to state their methodology or evidence; the second is a student paper from the PLA's military academy. You need to find reliable, neutral, non-CCP sources for this claim. Additionally, it appears that you may be using LLM translation to help with your editing -- I strongly suggest avoiding using that in the article, as it's a very quick way to get blocked from editing. ⇒SWATJester 16:50, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

So does mean these policy may also applies at other language Misplaced Pages? Because about months ago I was being reported by someone and got blocked on Japanese Misplaced Pages for one week because I used machine translation and LLM, as they said to my talk page at there. AussieSurplus1510 (talk) 14:13, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Every language Misplaced Pages makes their own policies, for the most part. Those may be identical, or may be different. ⇒SWATJester 17:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the English Misplaced Pages Manual of Style and article titles policy, 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, Misplaced Pages’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Misplaced Pages 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:

• adhere to the purposes of Misplaced Pages;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

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.