Thanks! As for the Huntington Estate... the page doesn't say more about it. I wouldn't be surprised if it was a plantation. Many Southern prisons were built on plantations.
WhisperToMe (talk) 05:13, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I found on the same page that the prison has the Huntington Estate has the graves of Thompson McNeil and Thomas McNeil. I wonder if their names have more clues
Hi – sorry, my Wikipedia time has been severely restricted recently. I had a look at the talk page for Beverly Hills 9/11 Memorial Garden and tried several things to fix the redlink, but nothing worked; it definitely is to do with the / symbol. I think it's an unavoidable problem with that character in template space. There are a few other characters that make templates go funny, I think: certainly the "|" does. Anyway, it's not too much of a problem because if you click the "Review or comment" link, it will take you to the template (albeit in edit mode). Also, more importantly, the template does appear correctly on the T:TDYK page, as do your others. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!)12:47, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Quite often a nomination will sit for a while before being picked up – it seems to be random. Back in the days when I was first involved with DYK (years ago!), noms were usually reviewed within a few days; now, it's more like weeks. Every nom does eventually get some eyes on it, though. I'll see what I can do, but I'm afraid I will be very pressed for time for the next few weeks (on-wiki for literally a few minutes at a time only). Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!)13:02, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:QPQ#QPQ. As part of the DYK process, you should review another nomination. "New nominators (those with fewer than five DYK credits) are exempt from this review requirement, as is the nomination of another editor's article, although they are strongly encouraged to do so." I'm not sure if you've done five yet or not. Edwardx (talk) 09:43, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for June 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Felisa Vanoff, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Peter Hamilton and Salzberg (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
I've replied on my talk page, but thought it might help to mention it here too.
Once you have five or more DYK credits, which I believe you do, you have to review one other nomination for each article you self-nominate. See WP:DYKR for details. None of us really know how to review a nomination before we try. If you do your best and note in your comments that it is the first one that you've reviewed, others should be tolerant of any shortcomings! My advice would be to pick an article about which you have some understanding of the subject matter, you read the language(s) concerned, and where the sources especially for the hook are available free online. If you have any questions just drop a note on my talk page. Edwardx (talk) 21:18, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lili Bosse
Hello, Zigzig20s. You have new messages at PFHLai's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hi, normally I would suggest that you sit tight and wait for another reviewer, then sit tight and wait for your hook to be promoted. With around 70 approved hooks on the nomination page, it might take some time till you see it on the main page. Now, with everything so upended at DYK over the last month, we're all trying to keep a level head and I also suggest you do the same. Best, Yoninah (talk) 13:20, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, it could go either way. I put it under Diplomatic career, but you could just as well move it to Personal. Yoninah (talk) 23:14, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
With regards to your messages at WikiProject Libertarianism and WikiProject Conservatism, please see WP:CANVASS. When notifying other editors of discussions, you are expected to do so in a neutral manner. Thanks, Number5715:52, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If this gets deleted, this will completely discourage me. See that the alleged vandal has deleted info from the article while the AFD is on, perhaps to make the article look weaker? Actually, I really would like to restore the 'bibliography' section--am I allowed to?Zigzig20s (talk) 16:10, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If it's referenced to reliable, third party sources that discuss the subject in depth, then the likelihood is that it won't be deleted. If it is, then you need to accept that the subject does not meet the notability criteria – it's a learning process.
Also, if the IP is deleting stuff during the AfD, note that in the discussion. People will read it (as you've seen). I don't think it's wise for you to continue reverting on the article. Number5716:32, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is it wise for an unregistered address to edit the article and delete info? Anyway, I did not restore the section; someone else did.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:41, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I have started "asking for permission" to edit now. And will take a break from Wikipedia after this. I have been editing Wikipedia for years, creating pages, have had DYKs recently (today for example), but I am being treated on the same level as an unregistered account who tries to delete referenced articles about prominent people. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:48, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting some editors should get different treatment when they behave badly? You made nine reverts of a perfectly legitimate (albeit malformed) AfD template on the article. Both of you are lucky that you aren't blocked. Your contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated by other users, but you also need to accept that not everyone necessarily shares the same opinion regarding notability as yourself, and some are very ill-informed. Numerous articles that I created have been AfD'd by editors who don't understand notability guidelines, but rather than throw a hissy fit, I just presented a strong case in the AfD debate, and they've all been kept (I don't believe any of the near-5,000 articles I've created deleted). You should just do the same and get on with it. Number5718:04, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I am taking a break from Wikipedia now. Someone else mentioned WP:GNG or WP:BEFORE on the AFD page. I don't have time to read all the Wikipedia policies because I find it more important to create referenced pages about prominent topics. It has never been a problem. But now I am discouraged.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:20, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Lili Bosse
Hi Zigzig20s,
Unfortunately I have very little time for article writing these days, but will definitely look into translating these articles, as they are informative and well-sourced. The smaller DYK about Lili Bosse is the first candidate. I will let you know if I get the time to translate them.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
The paragraph which I edited was subsequently deleted and then later reinstated in an amended form - the fuller ref remains (final one of the article). Paul W (talk) 14:00, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No bare URL remains (I converted the final one earlier; a batch of bare URLs earlier in the paragraph disappeared in an intermediate edit by someone else). Have removed the template. Paul W (talk) 15:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Beverly Hills Courier is very localized coverage, which has less weight as a reliable source as compared with regional coverage such as Variety and The Hollywood Reporter, or national coverage such as The New York Times. Since all of the Courier references were mirrored by other sources, I felt it could be safely deleted. Yoninah (talk) 23:51, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your questions
Hi, thanks for your questions. Let's get some terms straight:
Original research means putting something in an article without a reference. Without a reference, it’s as if you made it up yourself, and it will probably be deleted.
Secondary sources refer to references that are independent of the topic you’re covering. In the case of the Beverly Hills 9/11 Memorial Garden, the website is a primary source and should be cited as little as possible. The majority of information should come from independent media.
Close paraphrasing means copying a reference verbatim, either copying the words or copying the flow (e.g., changing the words but copying the line-by-line sentence structure). The easiest way to avoid close paraphrasing is simply to put the words in quotes. For example, when I was describing the unusual layout of a Jerusalem neighborhood, I couldn’t figure out how to rephrase a few words of the description, so I put them in quotes right in the middle of the sentence:
The buildings themselves were arranged in a "confusing zig-zag pattern" to slow down Arab armies that might charge the complex,<ref>
In general, the way I avoid close paraphrasing is by first copying down everything I want to include from the sources, and then "mixing it up" – telling it over in my own words. Everything is sourced, but it's not copied. With your background in academic work, it sounds like you, too, have the ability to be "creative" and avoid close paraphrasing by rewording the information you get from your sources.
As far as the list of donors in the 9/11 Memorial Garden article, you really do need secondary references to back them up. You might do Google searches on each name (e.g. Gilbert R. Chagoury Beverly Hills 9/11 Memorial Garden) and see what comes up. If you find cites for just a few, put them in a paragraph rather than a list:
The names of benefactors of the Beverly Hills 9/11 Memorial Garden are engraved on black granite plaques in the garden. They include: Gilbert R. Chagoury,<ref> Lili Bosse,<ref> etc.
No, I still don't understand why people want a secondary source for a description of names on a document. It's RIGHT THERE. This really makes no sense.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's the difference between a primary source (the monument) and a secondary source. Secondary sources are always preferred. Yoninah (talk) 22:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, there's the matter of what Wikipedia is all about. Just because something is TRUE doesn't make it VERIFIABLE. As a public encyclopedia that basically anyone can edit, one of Wikipedia's ground rules is that information must be verified by an independent source. Your monument just got caught in the middle :) Yoninah (talk) 22:21, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's verifiable on the pictures. Some of the names can be seen on a picture I uploaded (for example, Chagoury). I could try to take more pictures next time I am in town. But it is completely verifiable, as it is on the monument. It's not controversial for one split second.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would just go looking for sources that cite the names on the monument. And put the names in a paragraph, so it doesn't stick out as some long, unsourced list. Yoninah (talk) 22:30, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here's why I think this requirement makes zero sense: this is a fairly new monument and there likely won't be sources describing the monument in detail, adding the names of donors inscribed upon the monument. It only takes looking at the monument though. It's not made up or controversial; the names on it are just a fact. Look at the picture!Zigzig20s (talk) 22:33, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I probably should, although arguing is exhausting (and in submitting a few articles for DYK, I've encountered a few people on Wikipedia who seem to want to do nothing but argue; do these people really have no lives?). At least we disagree but you are cordial.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:23, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for July 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Silvio Zavala, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page University of Madrid. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hello. I fail to see how we can expect to have fully referenced articles, without what you call close paragraphrasing. But to be more constructive, why don't you try to improve the article? Bear in mind there was no article about all when I created it, even though she was a very prominent entertainer.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:46, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I can't both review and edit articles too. I am currently helping to clear the backlog of DYK nominations, and there are too few of us for that job already. The Felissa Vanoff article requires a complete re-write, and I don't have time for that. You don't have to do close paraphrasing (not paragraphing). You read the source, then look away from it and write it in your own words. You check that the facts (not whole phrases) match the source, then you write the reference. If there is something which cannot be written in your own words, then you put it in quotation marks and cite it. --Storye book (talk) 18:00, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote an article based on the references; that's what we do. But sometimes when you say someone was born on a specific day in a specific town, there is no other way to put it. But to be frank I won't submit more articles for DYK because it doesn't get many views when it's on the front page just for a day anyway--so it's not really worth it.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:19, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You have attempted to justify doing close paraphrasing, which is not allowed in DYK noms, then you ask me to re-write the article for you, then you give up. This is a great pity. It does take time to learn how to re-write something in your own words while keeping the facts straight - and some people have great difficulty with it, especially at first. A good technique is to get all the facts in your head, think of a way to present them in a different order or from a different perspective - then a new form of wording will come naturally. Close paraphrasing is identifiable when a very high proportion of the words in a long passage occur in the original order. We are not talking about the odd short phrase such as birth-date-and-town, book-and-publisher, who-worked-for-whom and so on. Of course these are allowable.
Please remember the reason why WP has to be so careful with copyvio and anything close to that. The world is full of big, greedy copyright lawyers who have teams using search engines to find excuses to sue. WP's existence could depend on us not giving them those excuses. So the DYK copyvio rules are not about reviewers trying to make your life difficult - they are about all of us wanting to keep WP in existence, and asking (please?) for your help and cooperation.
Your DYK nominations are worthwhile and valued, and I hope that you will return with more articles in due course. Take heart - you can adapt to anything if you are open to it. --Storye book (talk) 09:45, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Describing it as a group within Thalamiflorae is misleading; it is a genus, synonymised with Nigella in The Plant List, but recognised by Flora Iberica (and Wikipedia ES). Wikipedia ES claims 5 species, but I suspect that's due to Wikipedia ES's habit of confusing species and names; at a guess there's the one species Nigella (Garidella) nigellastrum. I'd also guess that Nigella garidella is the same species. Lavateraguy (talk) 19:44, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hatnote at Hôtel de Boisgelin
Hi. Please have a look at WP:NOARTICLE. Hatnotes are navigation aids, and not vehicles for article creation. If you believe there should be an article, why not create a stub? Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 10:17, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Aix Cathedral
Thank you for opening a discussion rather than simply reverting. I am (a) not much involved in Wikipedia presently and (b) on holiday, so please allow me more time until it's convenient for me to tackle your question properly. In the meantime please take a look at WP:COMMONNAME, which makes the point that article titles should be the common name - which is often not the same as the full or the official name - of a subject as used in English. Jsmith1000 (talk) 11:36, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Tyler Jacks may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
to study cancer-associated genes and to construct mouse models of many human cancer types.<ref>[http://www.spoke.com/info/pEqLOuh/TylerJacks Spoke: Tyler Jacks</ref> The Jacks lab studies the
"bhcouriergetty">Victoria Talbot, 'Second Annual J. Paul Getty Medal Goes to Lord Rothschild', ''[[The Beverly Hills Courier]'', July 25, 2014, Volume XXXXVIIII Number 30, p. 21 [http://bhcourier.
oops; you're correct, it should have remained as a start. I was thinking of something else. I can revert, if you want; thanks for catching it.--FeanorStar7 09:56, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I have returned it to start, but kept "the arts and entertainment work group" tag that you added. Feel free to expand the page further if you want. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 09:59, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for July 23
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Stanley Hall (dancer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jack Cole. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
I'm not sure what this request is about. As I'm sure you know, you can create a book cover image yourself under fair use. Just download a cover image from Amazon or some similar source, go to Wikipedia:Upload/old, select "It is a cover or other page from a book, DVD, newspaper, magazine, or similar source", browse for the image, fill out those template fields, and upload.
One piece of random advice on your article-in-preparation. We are no longer supposed to use red links for people who don't have articles. That's because if an article is created someday, it might be for someone else with the same name, leading to BLP concerns. See WP:REDNOT. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:32, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You've been an editor here for eight years and you have a bunch of DYK's to your credit so you clearly know what you are doing, yet with no explanation you are asking a stranger out of the blue to do a straightforward task for you that everyone else does for themselves. Do you see how odd that looks? The only explanation I can think of is that you are under some kind of upload ban for having abused fair use in the past. If that isn't the case, if you really are just unsure of how to do it, then this is a 'teach a person to fish' situation. If my pointers above weren't good enough to get you going, try asking at the WP:Teahouse, they are very good at helping the uncertain. If you know how to upload but are unsure about filling out those fair use template fields, I can review it once you have it uploaded. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited C.C. Slaughter, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages First National Bank and Fort Belknap. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
